Skip to main content

Full text of "The Old Latin and the Itala, with an appendix containing the text of the S. Gallen palimpsest of Jeremiah"

See other formats 


m 


H*  . 


»    *;  ™       ^-  -A.  -••   '«£•*:•:-•.«  Br   -  ^^1 


TEXTS    AND    STUDIES 

CONTRIBUTIONS   TO 

BIBLICAL   AND   PATRISTIC   LITERATURE 


EDITED    BY 

J.   ARMITAGE   ROBINSON   B.D. 

HON.    PH.D.    GOTTINGEN       HON.    D.D.    HALLE 
NOREISIAN   PROFESSOR   OF   DIVINITY 


VOL.    IV. 

No.  3.     THE   OLD   LATIN   AND   THE   IT  ALA 


CAMBRIDGE 

AT    THE    UNIVERSITY    PRESS 
1896 


Eonbon:    C.   J.    CLAY   AND   SONS, 

CAMBRIDGE   UNIVERSITY  PRESS  WAREHOUSE, 

AVE    MARIA  LANE. 

2fi3,  ARGYLB  STREET. 


leip>ifl:  F.  A.  BROCKHAUS. 
to  $orfe:   MACMILLAN  AND  CO. 


THE    OLD    LATIN 


AND 


THE    ITALA 


WITH   AN   APPENDIX   CONTAINING 

THE   TEXT   OF   THE   S.    GALLEN   PALIMPSEST 

OF  JEREMIAH 


BY 

F.   C.   BURKITT   MA. 


CAMBRIDGE 

AT    THE    UNIVERSITY    PRESS 
1896 

[All  Rights  reserved] 


Cambridge : 

PRINTED   BY   J.   AND   C.    F.    CLAY, 
AT   THE   UNIVERSITY   PRESS. 


TO   THE  REVEREND 
WILLIAM   SANDAY   D.D. 

THE  LADY   MARGARET'S   PROFESSOR  OF  DIVINITY 
IN  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OXFORD 

IS  DEDICATED 

THIS  ATTEMPT  TO  BUILD 

BY    THE  METHODS  HE  HAS  TAUGHT 

ON    THE    FOUNDATIONS    HE    HAS    LAID. 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS. 


PAGES 

INTRODUCTION     ......  1-3 

THE  OLD  LATIN 4—17 

The  book  of  Daniel 6 

The  book  of  Job 8 

The  four  books  of  Kings 9 

The  Old  Latin  MSS  of  the  Gospels 10 

The  'African'  Text  of  the  Gospels      ...  11 

The  'European'  Text  of  the  Gospels 15 

The  Great  Interpolations  found  in  early  Latin  Texts        .         .  16 

NOTE  I.     The  use  of  the  LXX  text  of  Daniel  in  Latin  writer*       .  18 — 31 

Tertullian 18 

S.  Cyprian 25 

S.  Victorinus  of  Pettau 29 

NOTE  II.     The  text  of  Job  in  Latin  Fathers    ,  32—34 

NOTE  III.     On  Cod.  Colbertinus  (c) 35-40 

NOTE  IV.     Tabulated  Renderings 41— 45 

tlte  ri 41 

7rapa[3o\T]  .......... 

o  Kooyxo?  ........... 

NOTE  V.     On  the  'Western1  Interpolations  in  the  Gospels        .         .  46—53 

The  Greater  Interpolations  and  their  Western  Attestation  47 

The  Smaller  Interpolations  and  their  Western  Attestation  50 

Greater  Interpolations  characteristic  of  the  Old  Syriac       .  52 

THE   'ITALA3 55—78 

The  '  Italian '  group  of  Old  Latin  MSS         ....  55 

Remains  of  the  African  text  in  S.  Augustine's  earlier  works    .  56 

S.  Augustine  and  Felix  the  Manichee         ...  57 

The  text  of  the  Fleury  Palimpsest      ....  58 

S.  Augustine's  praise  of  the  Vulgate  Gospels     ...  58 


Vlll  TABLE    OF   CONTENTS. 

PAGES 

The  quotations  in  S.  Augustine  de  Consensu  Euangclistarum    .  59 

The  *  Itala  interpret  atw3 60 

Examination   of   S.  Augustine's   argument   in   de  Doct.    Christ. 

ii  16—22 61 

The  term  italus    .......  34 

NOTE  I.     S.  Augustine  and  Felix  the  Manichee        ....     G6 71 

The  text  of  what  S.  Augustine  read  at  the  trial        .         .  66 

The  accuracy  and  fidelity  of  the  report       ....  70 

NOTE  II.     The  Gospel  text  in  Aug.  de  Consensu      ....     72 78 

ADDITIONAL  NOTE  on  the  preservation  of  S.  Augustine's  text  in 

extant  MSS  of  the  New  Testament 78 

APPENDIX 

THE  S.  GALLEN  FRAGMENT  OF  JEREMIAH 79—92 

NOTES 

On  Micah  v  2  in  the  Weingarten  MS 93 

On  Mark  xvi  4  in  Cod.  Bolnensis  (k)     .        .         .         .         .  94 

INDEX  OF  PATRISTIC  WORKS 95,  96 


INTRODUCTION. 


THE  following  Essays  have  grown  out  of  a  lecture  delivered  at 
Oxford  during  the  Lent  Term  of  the  present  year.  My  original 
object  was  not  so  much  to  give  a  general  summary  of  what  is 
known  about  Latin  Versions  of  the  Bible  as  to  call  attention  to 
certain  detached  points  of  interest  connected  with  the  subject, 
which  could  be  studied  with  more  or  less  completeness  by 
themselves.  These  points  once  settled,  a  firmer  hold  would  be 
gained  upon  the  general  problems  which  confront  the  student  in 
this  complicated  subject.  One  of  these  points,  the  identification  of 
S.  Augustine's  Itala  with  the  Vulgate,  was  of  sufficient  im 
portance  to  expand  into  an  Essay  by  itself.  The  rest  of  the  lecture 
has  been  left  as  it  was  originally  delivered,  but  I  have  added 
some  Notes  to  what  might  appear  the  more  hazardous  statements 
in  the  text.  These  Notes  will,  I  hope,  serve  to  justify  and  to 
illustrate  the  positions  I  have  been  led  to  take,  and  to  form  an 
apology  for  the  publication  of  the  Essays. 

To  have  come  to  novel  conclusions  after  working  at  such 
familiar  materials  as  the  quotations  of  Tertullian  and  SS.  Cyprian 
and  Augustine  fills  me  with  some  alarm  for  the  correctness  of  my 
reasoning,  and  makes  me  wish  to  have  the  judgment  of  specialists 
upon  my  work.  But  whatever  may  be  thought  of  the  explana 
tion  of  the  Itala,  here  revived  for  the  first  time  since  the  days  of 
the  compilation  of  the  Glossa  Ordinaria,  I  cannot  but  think  that 
the  story  of  Felix  the  Manichee,  taken  in  connection  with  the 
undoubted  use  of  the  Vulgate  in  the  de  Consensu  Euangelistarum, 
ought  to  modify  current  ideas  of  the  composition  of  the  New 
Testament  in  the  African  Church  of  the  fifth  century.  In  the 
present  day  S.  Augustine  is  almost  invariably  considered  as  an 

B.  1 


2  INTRODUCTION. 

'  Old  Latin '  authority  for  all  parts  of  the  Bible  and  in  all  his 
writings,  and  the  cautions  uttered  by  Sabatier  himself  (Praef. 
p.  Ivii)  are  generally  unheeded. 

The  evidence  for  the  use  of  the  Septuagint  version  of  Daniel 
in  the  early  Latin  Church  does  not  seem  to  be  so  widely  known  as 
it  should  be.  I  have  therefore  given  it  somewhat  fully.  The 
early  literary  history  of  the  book  of  Job  in  Latin  is  written  here, 
I  believe,  for  the  first  time. 

The  fragments  of  Jeremiah  from  S.  Gallen  are  republished 
from  the  MS.  Tischendorfs  transcript  is  inaccurate  and  not  very 
accessible,  and  the  text  of  the  MS  is  of  sufficient  interest  to  deserve 
a  critical  estimate  of  its  value.  The  uncial  types  used  on  pp. 
82 — 85  are  those  cut  more  than  a  hundred  years  ago  for  Kipling's 
edition  of  Codex  Bezae.  They  must  not  of  course  be  taken  as 
accurately  representing  the  shapes  of  the  letters  in  the  S.  Gallen 

MS. 

For  convenience  of  reference  I  give  a  list  of  the  chief  Latin 
MSS  of  the  N.  Test,  referred  to  in  this  volume,  with  their  reputed 
dates. 

a.  Cod.  Vercellensis  (iv),  at  Vercelli. 

b.  „  Veronensis  (v),  at  Verona. 

c.  „  Colbertinus  (xii),  at  Paris,  from  Languedoc. 

d.  „  Bezae  (vi),  at  Cambridge,  from  Southern  Gaul  (?). 

e.  „  Palatinus  (v),  at  Vienna,  once  at  Trent. 
/  „  Brixianus  (vi),  at  Brescia. 

ff.         „    Corbeiensis  2  (vi),  at  Paris,  from  Corbie  in  Picardy. 

h  (evv.).  Cod.  Claromontanus  (v — vii),  at  the  Vatican.  Only 
Mt  in  O.  Latin. 

h  (apoc.,  act.,  cath.  epp.).  Cod.  Floriacensis  (vi — vii),  at  Paris, 
from  Fleury  on  the  Loire.  A  palimpsest,  and  very  fragmentary. 

i.     Cod.  Vindobonensis  (vii),  at  Vienna,  once  at  Naples  (Lc  Me). 

k.       „    Bobiensis  (v),  at  Turin,  once  at  Bobbio  (Me  Mt). 

I.  „  Rehdigeranus  (vii),  at  Breslau,  once  apparently  at 
Verona.  As  this  MS  has  a  Vulgate  base  with  occasional  Old  Latin 
readings  it  is  called  reh  by  Westcott  and  Hort. 

m.  Speculum  [Ps-]Augustini.  A  collection  of  extracts  from 
the  Old  and  New  Test.,  now  edited  in  Corp.  Scr.  Eccl.  Lat.  vol.  xii. 


INTRODUCTION.  3 

n.  Cod.  Sangallensis  (v),  at  S.  Gallon  (fragments  only).  Two 
leaves,  formerly  called  a2,  are  now  at  Coire. 

o.  Cod.  Sangallensis  (vii),  at  S.  Gallen.  Last  leaf  of  n,  but 
in  a  later  hand. 

q.     Cod.  Monacensis  (vii),  at  Munich,  once  at  Freising. 

r.        „     Usserianus  (?  vii),  at  Dublin. 

s.     Fragmenta  Ambrosiana  (v — vi),  at  Milan  (Lc). 

t.     Fragmenta  Bernensia  (vi),  at  Berne  (Me). 

Among  the  best  MSS  of  the  Vulgate  (following  Wordsworth 
and  White)  are 

A.  Cod.  Amiatinus. 

C.  „     Cavensis. 

J.  „     Foro-Juliensis. 

M.  „     Mediolanensis. 

3\  „     Epternacensis. 

A  remark  made  by  Dr  Sanday  at  the  head  of  his  Essay  on  the 
text  of  k  is  so  appropriate  here  that  I  will  repeat  it.  He  says :  "In 
speaking  of  the  '  texts '  of  e,  k,  Cyprian,  &c.  all  the  phenomena  of 
those  texts  is  meant.  For  our  present  purpose  it  is  not  necessary 
to  discriminate  between  those  of  reading,  which  imply  a  difference 
in  the  underlying  Greek,  and  those  of  rendering,  where  the 
variation  is  confined  to  the  Latin.  It  is  one  of  the  immense 
advantages  which  the  Latin  possesses  over  the  Greek  text,  that 
in  any  attempt  to  trace  the  genealogical  relations  of  the  different 
authorities,  both  these  distinct  classes  of  phenomena  are  available. 
In  the  Greek  where  there  are  no  varieties  of  reading  the  text  is 
necessarily  colourless:  in  the  Latin  where  this  is  the  case  dif 
ferences  of  rendering  may  still  afford  clear  indications  of  parentage ; 
and  it  is  by  following  out  such  indications  that  we  are  able  to 
determine  the  mutual  connexions  and  affinities  of  the  MSS."  ( Old- 
Latin  Biblical  Texts,  ii,  p.  xlii.) 


1—2 


THE   OLD   LATIN. 


THE  importance  of  the  Latin  Versions  is  not  confined  to  their 
critical  worth.  Whatever  value  we  may  attach  to  the  Latin 
interpretations  of  phrases  occurring  in  the  original  Greek,  it  is 
undeniable  that  they  have  greatly  influenced  Western  theological 
thought.  Even  the  most  literal  version  is  also  in  some  sense  a 
commentary :  the  Latin  indeed  has  none  of  the  authority  which 
sometimes  attaches  itself  to  the  Syriac  rendering  of  words  and 
phrases  originally  spoken  in  an  Aramaic  dialect ;  yet  to  us  it  is 
historically  more  important.  Many  of  our  current  conceptions  of 
theological  ideas  have  come  to  us  through  this  Latin  channel. 
The  word  '  eternal '  is  a  familiar  instance :  another  is  Luther's 
famous  difficulty  with  agite  paenitentiam  as  an  equivalent  for 
/jL€Tavo€iT€.  But  the  influence  in  question  is  not  confined  to  such 
serious  matters.  We  more  often  think  of  the  place  of  the  Cruci 
fixion  as  'Calvary'  than  as  'Golgotha'.  Again,  from  the  history 
of  the  Latin  Bible  we  learn,  that  Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus  and 
Deuteronomy  have  always  been  called  by  their  Greek  names  in 
Western  Europe.  In  Tertullian  we  also  find  Arithmi  instead  of 
Numeri ;  yet  as  early  as  S.  Cyprian  the  fourth  book  of  the 
Pentateuch  had  a  vernacular  name,  as  it  has  among  ourselves 
to-day. 

Nevertheless  the  main  worth  of  the  Latin  Versions  to  us  is 
their  critical  value  as  '  authorities '  for  the  text.  Since  the  time 
of  Lachmann  the  importance  of  the  ancient  codices  of  the  Old 
Latin  has  always  been  recognised  in  New  Testament  criticism, 
even  by  scholars  to  whom  '  Western '  and  '  corrupt '  were  in  all 
cases  synonymous  terms.  It  is  however  to  those  who  frankly 
accept  Dr  Hort's  theory  of  the  Syrian  (or  Antiochian)  revision 
that  this  value  is  necessarily  greatest,  whatever  may  be  their 


THE   OLD    LATIN.  5 

feeling  with  regard  to  '  Western '  texts.  As  long  as  in  the 
thousand  Greek  MSS  of  the  Gospels  were  seen  so  many  practically 
independent  authorities  the  evidence  of  a  version  might  be 
neglected.  But  Dr  Hort's  scheme  so  reduces  the  vast  mass  of 
Greek  witnesses,  that  the  Western  texts  found  in  the  early  versions 
regain  much  of  their  true  numerical  preponderance  of  attestation. 
Moreover  with  a  comparatively  narrow  basis  of  really  weighty 
Greek  evidence,  the  possibility  of  sporadic  error  in  our  best  MSS 
must  always  be  a  factor  in  the  account,  and  the  value  of  a  version 
which  in  its  origin  at  least  was  utterly  independent  of  the  eclectic 
Greek  texts  of  the  fourth  century  becomes  more  evident  than 
ever. 

I  have  spoken  of  the  Old  Latin  Version ;  the  phrase  is  in  itself 
an  assumption.  Tot  exemplaria  quot  codices — '  every  MS  gives  a 
new  type  of  text ' — was  the  opinion  of  S.  Jerome  ;  and  it  is  only 
in  quite  recent  years  that  criticism  has  got  even  a  little  beyond 
this  stage.  At  the  same  time  the  fact  that  our  Latin  authorities 
often  conspire  together  in  variants  found  in  hardly  any  extant 
Greek  MS  was  early  noticed ;  whether  there  were  one  or  two  inde 
pendent  versions  is  a  comparatively  minor  question  in  face  of  the 
undoubted  fact  that  the  independent  versions  were  few  in  number. 
Among  the  more  striking  examples  of  the  agreement  of  the  Old 
Latin  codices  (or  of  a  majority  of  them)  against  most  other 
authorities  are  the  substitution  of  Ps  ii  7  '  Thou  art  My  Son,  this 
day  have  I  begotten  Thee '  for  the  words  uttered  from  heaven  at 
the  Baptism  in  Lc  iii  22;  and  the  curious  transposition  of  the 
clauses  of  Lc  ix  62,  so  that  the  verse  runs  '  No  man  that  looketh 
back  and  putteth  his  hand  to  the  plough  is  fit  for  the  kingdom  of 
God.'  Neither  of  these  is  in  any  way  supported  by  the  Old 
Syriac ;  so  that  they  seem  to  be  examples  of  readings  geographi 
cally  '  Western '. 

In  classifying  our  Old  Latin  authorities  and  attempting  to 
write  a  history  of  the  texts  they  present,  each  group  of  the  books 
of  the  Bible  must  be  treated  separately.  It  is  not  till  the  seventh 
century  that  we  hear  of  Latin  Pandects — great  MSS  of  the  whole 
mass  of  Canonical  Scriptures.  A  mere  glance  indeed  at  the  extant 
evidence  for  the  various  books  shews  the  different  ways  in  which 
their  text  has  been  manipulated.  The  perplexing  variety  of  the 


6  THE   OLD   LATIN. 

Latin  texts  of  the  Gospels,  the  Psalms,  and  Isaiah,  may  be 
contrasted  with  the  uninterrupted  transmission  of  the  book  of 
Wisdom,  a  book  highly  esteemed  and  largely  quoted,  in  which, 
strange  to  say,  the  text  of  S.  Cyprian's  citations  hardly  differs 
from  the  Clementine  Vulgate.  These  however  are  extreme 
instances. 

There  are  two  books  of  the  Old  Testament  which  may  be 
conveniently  treated  apart  from  the  rest.  The  recensions  in 
which  they  are  extant  are  well  known  from  Greek  sources,  and 
differ  so  extensively  from  one  another  as  to  be  easily  recognised 
in  the  corresponding  Latin  translations.  These  are  the  books  of 
Daniel  and  Job. 

The  Old  Latin  authorities  for  the  book  of  Daniel  may  be  divided 
into  two  families,  according  as  they  follow  the  genuine  LXX  or  the 
version  of  Theodotion.  Theodotion's  version  is  by  far  the  most 
commonly  met  with.  The  purely  Latin  attestation  for  it  begins 
with  the  3rd  cent.  African  tract  De  Pascha  computus  (dated  AD 
243)  and  Commodian1;  it  further  includes  Lucifer  and  the  other 
4th  cent,  writers2.  But  the  ancient  LXX  version,  as  represented 
by  the  Cod.  Chisianus  and  the  Hexapla,  is  found  in  all  the 
undoubtedly  genuine  works  of  Tertullian,  including  the  Monta- 
nistic  tracts  written  towards  the  end  of  his  life.  It  is  also  found 
in  the  Commentary  on  the  Apocalypse  by  S.  Victorinus  of  Pettau, 
who  was  martyred  in  AD  303.  The  genuine  chiliastic  conclusion 
of  this  work,  containing  the  clearest  use  of  the  LXX  Daniel,  was 
first  published  in  the  Theologisches  Literaturblatt  of  April  26, 
1895,  by  Dr  Haussleiter  of  Greifswald ;  but  the  LXX  text  is  to  be 
traced  in  the  earlier  part  of  the  work  as  well  (Migne  v  338,  340, 
and  Beatus,  pp.  440,  441).  The  quotations  of  S.  Cyprian  occupy 
a  curious  position  midway  between  the  LXX  and  Theodotion, 
suggesting  that  the  change  from  the  one  version  to  the  other 
was  taking  place  in  his  own  times,  at  least  at  Carthage3. 

Thus  the  earliest   Latin   version  of  Daniel  as  witnessed  by 

1  See  Imtruc  n  13  =  Dan  xiii  56  Theod ;  and  Apol  267,  268  =  Dan  ix  24,  26  Thcod. 

2  Theodotion's  version  is  also  found  in  the  Latin  translation  of  Irenaeus.     It  is 
therefore  probable  that  S.  Irenaeus  himself  used  Theodotion,  as  the  differences 
between  the  two  Greek  versions  of  Daniel  are  too  great  to  have  been  altogether 
obscured  in  translation. 

3  See  Note  i  at  the  end  of  this  Essay. 


THE   OLD   LATIN.  7 

Tertullian,  by  S.  Victorinus  of  Pettau,  and  partly  by  S.  Cyprian, 
was  made  from  the  LXX  ;  a  later  Latin  version  was  made  from 
Theodotion.  And  so  we  see  that  we  cannot  write  the  history 
of  the  Latin  versions  from  the  evidence  of  MSS  alone.  For  in 
the  book  of  Daniel  we  have  fragments  of  two  magnificent  Latin 
codices  of  the  5th  cent.,  the  Weingarten  MS  and  the  Wurzburg 
Palimpsest ;  but  both  give  Theodotion's  version  and  shew  no  trace 
of  the  LXX  text. 

The  language  of  all  the  Biblical  quotations  in  De  Pascha 
computus  distinctly  points  to  Africa,  and  its  date  is  contemporary 
with  S.  Cyprian.  Yet  in  the  long  quotation  of  Dan  ix  25 — 27  it 
keeps  to  Theodotion  throughout,  agreeing  indeed  very  closely  with 
the  first  hand  of  B.  This  might  suggest  that  we  have  evidence 
of  early  revision  from  the  Greek  even  in  the  African  Bible.  The 
book  of  Daniel  may  however  have  been  subjected  to  exceptional 
treatment;  if  Theodotion's  version  was  to  be  preferred  to  the 
LXX,  it  was  a  question  of  the  adoption  of  an  entirely  new  work, 
not  the  gradual  correction  of  one  type  of  text  by  another. 
S.  Cyprian's  mixed  text  of  Daniel  never  reappears  except  in  those 
writers  who  directly  quote  the  Testimonies,  and  it  may  never  have 
existed  as  a  Biblical  text  except  in  his  own  half-corrected  MS. 
All  other  Latin  authorities  use  a  text  wholly  that  of  the  LXX  or 
wholly  Theodotion's1.  The  fact  that  during  the  third  century  the 
African  Church,  following  the  example  of  the  rest  of  Christendom, 
exchanged  the  LXX  of  this  book  for  Theodotion  need  not  make 
us  reject  the  presumption  that  Greek  MSS  were  less  frequently  met 
with  in  Africa  than  elsewhere,  and  that  there,  if  anywhere, 
sporadic  correction  of  the  Latin  version  from  Greek  MSS  of  the 
Bible  was  uncommon. 

But  there  is  another  consideration  of  more  general  interest 
connected  with  the  substitution  of  Theodotion  for  the  LXX  in 
the  book  of  Daniel.  It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  Ecclesiastical 
writers  are  quite  silent  about  this  important  change.  The  utmost 

1  In  '  Tert '  aduersus  ludaeos  the  portions  taken  out  of  Tertullian  contra 
Marcion  iii  follow  the  LXX;  but  in  the  earlier  sections  of  adv.  ludaeos  (e.g.  §  8), 
to  which  there  are  no  parallels  in  Tertullian,  the  quotations  from  Daniel  follow 
Theodotion.  Note  that  concidentium  (adv.  ludaeos  §  3),  an  interpolation  in  the 
text  of  Dan  ii  35,  appears  to  come  directly  from  Cypr.  Test  n  17. 


THE    OLD    LATIN. 

that  even  the  learned  S.  Jerome  has  to  tell  us  upon  the  subject  is 
that  the  Church  did  not  use  the  LXX  in  this  book,  but  Theodo- 
tion:  '  et  hoc  cur  accident  nescio  '  (Hieron.  Praef.  in  Daniel).  No 
more  direct  proof  can  be  given  that  the  silence  of  Ecclesiastical 
writers  is  not  a  sufficient  ground  for  assuming  that  revisions  of 
the  Bible  of  which  they  tell  us  nothing  were  never  made.  I  leave 
it  to  my  readers  to  apply  this  to  the  objections  often  urged  against 
the  parallel  cases  of  the  Antiochian  revision  of  the  Greek  text 
of  the  New  Testament,  and  of  the  transformation  of  the  Old 
Syriac  into  the  present  Syriac  Vulgate. 

The  other  case  where  the  Old  Latin  authorities  can  at  once  be 
divided  by  recensions  is  the  book  of  Job.  This  book  passed  through 
three  stages  in  Greek.  (1)  In  its  original  Greek  form,  as  we  know 
from  the  express  statements  of  Origen,  about  400  lines  (i.e.  half- 
verses  of  the  Hebrew)  were  missing.  Either  they  were  absent 
from  the  translator's  MS,  or,  as  is  more  probable,  they  were  inten 
tionally  omitted  by  him.  This  original  state  survives  in  the 
Thebaic  version  published  by  Ciasca.  (2)  But  such  large  lacunae 
could  not  remain  unnoticed  after  the  publication  of  literal  Greek 
versions  from  the  Hebrew,  and  at  some  period  most,  but  not  quite 
till,  of  the  missing  lines  were  supplied  from  Theodotion.  This  is 
the  form  found  in  most  of  the  extant  MSS,  including  NBAC. 
(3)  In  the  Hexapla  Origen  accurately  filled  up  the  gaps,  placing 
however  all  the  lines  borrowed  from  Theodotion  under  asterisks. 
His  work  remains  in  several  Greek  MSS  used  by  Field,  and  in  the 
Syro-Hexaplar  version. 

Now  each  of  these  three  types  of  text  is  represented  in  the 
pre- Vulgate  Latin.  S.  Jerome  translated  Origen's  revision  into 
Latin,  reproducing  the  asterisks.  His  work  survives  in  at  least 
two  MSS,  and  it  is  the  text  printed  by  Sabatier.  It  was  used 
extensively  by  S.  Augustine  and  the  later  African  writers,  but 
they  make  no  distinction  between  the  passages  marked  with 
asterisks  and  the  rest ;  all  is  quoted  as  of  equal  authority.  Again, 
the  revision  found  in  NBA  etc.  is  represented  in  Latin  by  S. 
Ambrose,  who  here  as  often  exhibits  a  special  type  of  text  among 
Latin  authorities,  due  to  direct  dependence  upon  Greek  sources. 
But  the  original  Latin  version  did  not  contain  the  interpolated 
verses.  This  version  is  met  with  in  the  quotations  of  S.  Cyprian 


THE   OLD    LATIN.  9 

and  Lucifer :  in  Spain  it  survived  to  the  fifth  century,  as  is  shewn 
by  the  Speculum  and  Priscillian1. 

Only  in  these  two  books,  Daniel  and  Job,  can  we  treat  the 
Latin  versions  in  this  summary  fashion.  In  the  other  books  the 
extant  Greek  recensions  are  for  the  most  part  so  late  and  mixed 
that  the  Latin  does  not  easily  fit  in  with  any.  Take  the  case  of 
the  four  books  of  Kings.  Here  we  have  two  main  types  of  Greek 
text.  One  of  these  is  represented  by  B,  and  also  by  A  when  its 
loosely-fitting  interpolations  have  been  set  aside ;  the  other  is  the 
recension  of  Lucian.  Now  there  is  a  good  deal  of  evidence  which 
connects  the  Old  Latin  with  the  '  Lucianic '  text ;  but  it  would  be 
a  mistake  to  bring  in  the  Old  Latin  as  third  century  evidence  for 
the  Lucianic  text  as  we  know  it,  or  indeed  for  the  Lucianic 
recension  properly  so  called.  The  Old  Latin  seems  to  me  rather 
to  represent  one  element,  and  that  probably  the  most  important, 
out  of  which  the  composite  Lucianic  text  was  constructed. 
Lucian's  recension  in  fact  corresponds  in  a  way  to  the  Antiochian 
text  of  the  New  Testament.  Both  are  texts  composed  out  of 
ancient  elements  welded  together  and  polished  down.  A  text  akin 
to  that  underlying  the  Old  Latin  was  a  factor  in  each.  In  the 
case  of  the  Gospels  we  actually  possess  in  our  numerous  Greek, 
Latin  and  Syriac  MSS  continuous  texts  similar  to  the  elements 
out  of  which  the  Antiochian  text  was  constructed,  and  thus  the 
Antiochian  text  rarely  contains  traces  of  an  ancient  text  not 
better  preserved  elsewhere.  But  in  the  case  of  the  books  of  Kings 
our  Latin  evidence  is  fragmentary,  and  there  is  no  ancient  Greek 
MS  to  take  the  place  which  Cod.  Bezae  occupies  in  the  Gospels  and 
Acts.  Hence  the  importance  of  Lucian's  recension,  a  mixed  text 
with  ancient  elements  otherwise  unrepresented.  If  we  had  the 
Old  Latin  of  the  books  of  Kings  in  a  complete  and  pure  form  the 
value  of  Lucian  would  be  largely  discounted.  As  it  is,  we  can  use 
Lucifer  and  the  Vienna  Palimpsest  and  the  Speculum  to  prove 
the  existence  of  ancient  elements  in  Lucian :  but  we  cannot  use 
them  as  authenticating  Lucian  as  a  whole.  I  do  not  here  refer  to 
the  margin  of  the  Codex  Gothicus  Legionensis  published  by 
Vercellone,  as  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  this  interesting 

1  For  a  justification  of  the  statements  in  the  text  see  Note  u  at  the  end  of  this 
Essay. 


10  THE   OLD   LATIN. 

document  does  not  represent  readings  extracted  and  translated 
from  some  Greek  codex,  so  that  it  may  have  no  connection  with  the 
Old  Latin  properly  so  called1.  Moreover  the  literary  history  of  the 
book  of  Daniel  in  Latin  will  warn  us  against  trusting  too  implicitly 
to  the  evidence  of  Latin  MSS  unauthenticated  by  ancient  quotations. 

The  Old  Latin  MSS  of  the  Gospels. 

The  different  fates  which  befel  the  earliest  Latin  versions  of 
Daniel  and  Job, — the  former  disappearing  at  the  end  of  the  third 
century,  the  latter  surviving,  at  least  in  Spain,  till  the  fifth, — shew 
us  how  impossible  it  is  to  form  an  a  priori  judgment  about  the 
history  of  the  most  important  section  of  the  Bible,  viz.  the  Four 
Gospels.  Here  the  evidence  is  at  once  most  abundant  and  most 
confusing. 

A  rough  list  of  the  Old  Latin  MSS  of  the  Gospels  is  to  be  found 
in  the  Introduction  to  this  essay.  I  need  only  remark  here  that 
we  now  possess  at  least  fragments  of  sixteen  codices  that  are 
unhesitatingly  assigned  to  the  'Old  Latin  '.  Of  these  only  one,  the 
Latin  side  of  Codex  Bezae,  forms  part  of  a  bilingual  MS.  Four  of 
the  MSS  are  at  least  as  old  as  Codex  Bezae,  while  four  more,  a,  b, 
e  and  n,  are  said  to  be  yet  older,  dating  in  fact  from  a  time  when 
the  Old  Latin  was  in  full  Church  use  in  many  parts  of  Western 
Europe.  These  facts  are  worth  bearing  in  mind,  in  view  of 
the  not  unnatural  tendency  to  overestimate  the  number  and 
influence  of  bilingual  codices  in  the  Latin  Church,  or  even  to 
regard  the  history  of  the  Latin  versions  as  a  sub-province  of  the 
criticism  of  Codex  Bezae. 

For  the  most  part  what  we  know  about  the  provenance  of  our 
MSS  tells  us  nothing  which  can  help  us  to  localise  their  text.  The 
fact,  for  instance,  that  n  (together  with  the  Coire  fragment  of  the 
same  MS,  commonly  called  a2)  was  in  all  probability  part  of  the 
original  library  of  the  great  monastery  of  S.  Gallen,  does  not  give 
us  any  clue  to  the  wanderings  of  the  MS  in  the  two  centuries  and 
a  half  which  preceded  the  foundation  of  the  Benedictine  settle 
ment  there.  Again,  even  if  we  accept  the  tradition  that  Cod. 

1  Compare  for  a  parallel  instance  the  Latin  glosses  in  Cod.  rescript.  Crypto- 
ferratensis  (I1)  to  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah. 


THE   OLD   LATIN.  11 

Bobiensis  (k)  was  once  the  private  property  of  S.  Columban,  we  are 
not  helped  towards  the  solution  of  the  really  important  question, — 
where  and  why  an  African  text,  full  of  the  strange  clerical  blunders 
which  we  find  in  the  text  of  k,  came  to  be  transcribed  in  the 
generation  before  the  Saint  was  born  ? 

In  the  case  of  the  oldest  MS  (a),  and  of  the  youngest  (c),  a 
knowledge  of  the  history  of  the  MSS  does  however  help  us  in  the 
criticism  of  their  contents.  Cod.  a  (Vercellensis)  is  said  to  have 
been  written  at  Vercelli,  where  it  still  remains,  by  the  hand  of 
S.  Eusebius  during  his  retreat  from  the  Arians  after  the  Council 
of  Milan.  S.  Eusebius  died  before  the  Vulgate  was  begun,  and  is 
not  known  ever  to  have  left  N.  Italy.  Here  then,  if  anywhere,  we 
have  a  pre-Vulgate  '  European '  text.  Its  connection  with  S. 
Eusebius'  friend  Lucifer  of  Cagliari  I  shall  touch  upon  at  the  end 
of  this  essay.  Cod.  c  (Colbertinus),  a  MS  of  the  12th  cent.,  came 
from  Languedoc,  the  country  of  the  Albigenses1.  Only  among 
heretics  isolated  from  the  rest  of  Western  Christianity  could  an 
Old  Latin  text  have  been  written  at  so  late  a  period.  In  this 
case  therefore  our  knowledge  of  the  original  home  of  the  MS  to  a 
certain  extent  explains  the  character  of  its  text. 

The  '  African '  Text  of  the  Gospels. 

The  first  great  step  in  the  scientific  classification  of  the  Old 
Latin  MSS  of  the  Gospels  was  made  in  Dr  Hort's  letter  to  the 
Academy  of  Aug.  14,  1880,  in  which  he  for  the  first  time  pointed 
out  the  close  connection  of  the  texts  of  k  (Bobiensis)  and  e 
(Palatinus)  with  the  numerous  and  accurate  quotations  of  S. 
Cyprian.  Previously  to  this  Codd.  a  b  c  and  i  had  been  assumed 
to  represent  the  original  and  therefore  presumably  African  form 
of  the  Latin  Version,  all  variations  from  this  arbitrary  standard 
being  put  down  to  correction  from  Greek  MSS. 

Of  these  two  codices  k  is  more  faithful  to  the  Cyprianic  text 
than  e ;  but  both  are  on  quite  a  different  plane  from  the  rest  of 
the  Latin  MSS.  We  may  therefore  take  k  and  e  to  represent  the 

1  Berger,  Histoire  de  la  Vulgate,  pp.  74,  75.  A  curious  parallel  is  furnished  by 
a  13th  cent.  MS  of  the  N.T.,  in  which  about  half  the  text  of  the  Acts  is  Old  Latin 
of  good  quality.  The  MS  originally  came  from  Perpignan,  and  the  Old  Latin 
portion  has  lately  been  published  by  M.  Berger  (Notices  et  Extraits,  xxxv,  pt.  i). 


12  THE    OLD    LATIN. 

form  in  which  the  Gospels  were  read  in  Africa  (or  at  least  at 
Carthage)  as  early  as  the  middle  of  the  third  century.  The  only 
other  non-Patristic  authorities  which  shew  a  distinctive  '  African ' 
character  are  the  contemporary  corrections  in  the  text  of  n  (esp. 
in  Lc  and  Me),  which  must  have  been  made  from  a  MS  very  like  e ; 
and  isolated  sections  of  c,  such  as  the  last  chapters  of  the  Gospel 
of  S.  Luke.  The  strongly  African  character  of  Lc  xxiii,  xxiv  in 
this  MS  is  somewhat  obscured  by  the  fact  that  the  well-known 
Western  Non-Interpolations  in  cap.  xxiv — verses  and  clauses 
omitted  by  a  b  d  e  ff  I  r — have  been  inserted  into  c  from  the 
Vulgate,  with  the  language  of  which  they  almost  always  verbally 
agree,  though  the  other  verses  of  the  context  differ  widely  from  it1. 

The  character  of  this  '  African  '  version  differs  much  from  other 
Old  Latin  texts  both  in  language  and  in  the  underlying  Greek 
text".  But  one  fact  stands  out  above  all  others — its  utter  un- 
likeness  to  the  eclectic  texts  of  the  fourth  century,  both  Greek  and 
Latin.  For  the  most  part  the  interpolations  of  this,  the  oldest 
continuous  Latin  text  of  the  Gospels  which  has  come  down  to  us, 
are  not  the  interpolations  of  the  eclectic  texts,  and  its  omissions 
are  not  their  omissions :  moreover  its  renderings  are  not  the 
renderings  of  the  later  revised  Latin  texts  such  as  the  Vulgate 
and  its  immediate  predecessors. 

It  is  this  note  of  singularity  and  independence  which  is  the 
chief  characteristic  of  the  'African'  version,  whether  in  the  Gospels 
or  elsewhere ;  not  any  positive  quality  of  its  own  style  considered 
apart  from  other  Latin  versions  of  the  Bible. 

1.  Thus  we  find  occasional  transliterations  of  Greek  words, 
where  other  texts  have  vernacular  renderings.  Examples  are 

agape  1  Cor.  xiii  passim  Cypr.  Test  in  3 

anastasis  Me  xii  23  k 

discolam  Me  x  24  k 

martyria  Ps  cxviii  2  Cypr.  Test  in  16 

mans  Eleon  Me  xiv  26  k,  and  Ac  i  12  Aug.  contra  Fel  i  4 

In  the  titles  of  books  we  find  not  only  cata  Mattheum,  cata 

1  See  Note  in  at  the  end  of  this  Essay. 

2  The  only  thorough  investigation  of  any  part  of  the  African  text  is  to  be  found 
in  Dr  Sanday's  Essay  on  k  in  Old-Latin  Biblical  Texts,  vol.  ii. 


THE   OLD   LATIN.  13 

Lucan,  etc.,  but  in  Cyprian  also  we  have  in  Paroemiis  (e.g.  Test 
III  66),  and  in  Basilion  (i.e.  BacrtXefco^)  for  in  Regnorum  \libro\. 


2.  Quite  as  often  the  opposite  practice  prevails.     Several  well 
known  adaptations  of  Greek  words  either  do  not  occur  at  all  in  the 
African  texts  or  are  found  side  by  side  with  attempts  at  Latin 
equivalents.     Examples  are 

similitude  side  by  side  with  parabola 

bene  nuntiare  euangelizare 

tinguere  baptizare 

3.  In  the  African  texts  many  common  words,  familiar  to  us 
through  the  Vulgate  or  the  service  books,  are  represented  by  less 
usual  synonyms.     Among  the  more  prominent  examples  are 

illic  for  ibi 

nempe  ergo 

si  quo  minus  alioquin 

fuit  (fjv)  erat 

claritas  gloria 

sermo  (\6<yos)  uerbum 

felix  beatus 

discens  discipulus 

pressura  (most  books)  tribulatio  (Apoc) 

colligere  (exc.  P]zech)  congregare 

maledicere  (ove&i^eiv)  improperare 

saeculum  (in  S.  Joh)  mundus 

Among  texts  which  thus  assume  an  unfamiliar  aspect  in 
African  documents  a  notable  instance  is  Joh  i  1,  which  appears  in 
Test  II  3  (codd.  opt.)  as  In  principio  fuit  sermo.  In  Joh  viii  1  2  e 
and  Cypr.  Ep  63  have  not  Lux  Mundi  but  Lumen  Saeculi. 

This  unusual  vocabulary  is  extremely  useful  to  the  critic  :  it 
shews  the  comparative  independence  of  the  African  documents  ;  it 
is  also  a  most  useful  test  for  discovering  whether  documents  of 
uncertain  ancestry  be  '  African  '  or  not,  —  '  African  ',  that  is,  in  the 
sense  in  which  the  word  has  been  so  often  used  in  this  essay,  viz. 
homogeneous  with  the  Biblical  text  used  by  8.  Cyprian. 

For  it  can  scarcely  be  maintained  that  differences  of  rendering 
such  as  these  are  dialectical  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  word. 


14  THE   OLD   LATIN. 

They  can  only  in  part  be  paralleled  from  the  original  works  of 
African  writers ;  it  is  absurd  for  instance  to  claim  sermo  or  saeculum 
as  a  predominantly  'African'  word,  except  in  the  sense  that  the 
translator  of  the  Gospels  (presumed  from  other  considerations  to 
have  been  an  African  by  nationality)  took  these  words  as  his 
rendering  of  the  Johannine  \6yos  and  the  Johannine  #007*09,  and 
mechanically  retained  them  throughout.  Indeed  in  so  literal  a 
version  as  the  Old  Latin  there  is  not  much  room  for  dialectical 
peculiarities. 

The  most  promising  field  for  real  '  Africanisms '  would  be,  I 
should  imagine,  the  common  adverbial  locutions  and  the  smaller 
parts  of  speech  generally1.  Thus  illic  occurs  in  the  African  Fathers 
not  only  when  they  are  giving  the  words  of  Scripture,  but  also  in 
the  formula  of  quotation  item  illic,  where  the  Europeans  use  item 
ibi.  In  the  Book  of  Rules  composed  by  Tyconius,  an  African  who 
flourished  about  380  AD,  illic  occurs  a  dozen  times,  ibi  never. 
Here  then  we  seem  to  have  a  genuine  Africanism. 

But  such  clear  instances  are  rare ;  and  two  passages  from  S. 
Augustine,  in  which  he  expressly  declares  the  interchangeability 
of  some  of  these  synonyms,  shew  how  little  the  difference  of 
rendering  corresponds  to  real  difference  of  dialect.  He  says  (con 
tra  sermonem  Arrianorum  35):  "  Glorificare  autem  et  honorificare 
et  clarificare  tria  quidem  uerba,  sed  una  res  est,  quod  Graece 
dicitur  £ofaf€ti>;  interpretum  autem  uarietate  aliter  atque  aliter 
positum  est  in  Latino."  And  again  (de  Consensu  Euangelistarum 
iii  71):  "Marcus  [xvi  12]  \n<\\\ii...Euntibus  in  uillam.  castellum 
quippe  illud  non  absurde  etiam  uillam  potuisse  appellari  ...  et  in 
codicibus  quidem  graecis  magis  agrum  inuenimus  quam  uillam. 
agri  autem  nomine  non  castella  tantum  uerum  etiam  municipia 
et  coloniae  solent  uocari  extra  ciuitatem,  quae  caput  et  quasi 
mater  est  ceterarum,  unde  metropolis  appellatur."  From  the  last 
sentence  we  may  gather  that  though  in  S.  Augustine's  Africa  the 
'  municipium '  was  larger  than  the  '  castellum  ',  either  might  quite 
well  be  used  to  indicate  KWJJLT)  as  an  inhabited  place  inferior  to  the 
7roXfc9,  which  is  constantly  rendered  by  'ciuitas2'. 

1  See  Note  iv. 

2  See  0.  Lat.  Bill.  Texts,  ii  137  f. 


THE   OLD   LATIN.  15 

The  '  European '  Texts  of  the  Gospels. 

The  general  criticism  of  the  European  documents  has  yet  to  be 
written.  It  is  a  task  encompassed  with  peculiar  difficulties.  If 
the  received  theory  of  the  Latin  Versions  be  true — that  they 
originated  in  Africa,  and  were  adopted  in  Italy,  Gaul  and  Spain 
with  such  changes  as  local  usage  seemed  to  recommend,  and  with 
occasional  partial  revisions  from  such  Greek  MSS  as  were  available, 

then  we  can  indeed  investigate  the  original  African  text,  but 

the  original  European  text  is  almost  a  contradiction  in  terms.  The 
history  of  the  European  text  would  be  that  of  a  continuous  de 
velopment,  or  rather  degeneration,  from  the  African  standard. 
This  is  however  only  a  theory,  though  a  very  probable  one ;  and  it 
is  held  on  the  other  hand  by  some  scholars  that  there  was  an 
original  European  version  independent  of  the  African  text.  The 
question  has  a  very  practical  issue.  When  one  or  two  European 
authorities  side  with  the  Africans  against  the  rest,  are  we  to 
regard  these  'African'  readings  as  relics  of  a  more  ancient  stage 
of  the  '  European '  Latin  when  it  was  only  half  Europeanised  ?  Or 
are  these  African  readings  mere  excrescences  in  the  true  European 
text — like,  for  instance,  the  corrections  in  n  ? 

The  European  MSS  group  themselves  round  the  two  great 
codices  a  (Vercellensis)  and  b  (Veronensis) ;  and  of  late  there  has 
been  a  disposition  to  look  upon  b  as  giving  the  truest  picture  of 
the  European  text.  Mr  White,  whose  acquaintance  with  the 
details  of  these  MSS  must  be  as  great  as  any  scholar's,  says :  "  b 
seems  to  be  almost  a  typical  European  MS,  as  the  other  MSS  of 
European  and  of  Italian  origin,  such  as  a,  f,  h,  i,  q,  r,  all  resemble 
b  more  closely  than  they  resemble  each  other."1  He  might  indeed 
have  added  the  Vulgate  to  this  list  of  MSS.  There  is  no  doubt 
that  b  occupies  a  central  position,  and  that  its  great  rival  a  often 
has  African  renderings ;  the  only  question  is  whether  a  does  not  in 
this  respect  represent  an  altogether  earlier  stage  of  the  European 
Latin  than  b.  Nor  is  a  entirely  without  followers.  It  is  supported 
in  Mt  Me  Lc  by  the  Swiss  MS  n,  while  in  S.  John  (where  the  ex 
emplar  followed  by  n  seems  to  have  been  corrected  to  the  b  text) 

1  0.  Lat.  Bill.  Texts,  iii,  p.  xxxii. 


16  THE   OLD   LATIN. 

the  quotations  of  Lucifer  of  Cagliari  generally  agree  with  «.  A 
still  more  important  witness  to  the  age  of  the  text  of  a  is  Novatian 
of  Rome  (the  contemporary  of  S.  Cyprian),  whose  quotations  are 
decidedly  nearer  to  a  than  to  b.  And  in  this  connection  a  remark 
in  Dr  Sanday's  essay  on  k  is  well  worthy  of  attention.  Comment 
ing  on  Me  xii  40  he  says :  "  The  older  translators  had  great  diffi 
culty  with  7Tpo(f)do-et  /Aaicpd  Trpoo-evxo/jievoL,  though  they  ended  by 
hitting  upon  an  admirable  rendering  in  '  sub  obtentu  prolixae 
orationis  '  of  b,  adopted  in  Vulg." 

This  I  believe  to  be  what  has  often  happened,  though  as  a  rule 
b  is  supported  by  ff,  f  and  q  as  well  as  the  Vulgate  :  in  other 
words  b  is  the  oldest  representative  of  that  stage  of  the  European 
text  from  which  most  of  the  later  forms  of  the  Old  Latin,  and 
finally  the  Vulgate,  are  descended1. 

Before  taking  leave  of  this  part  of  the  subject  I  should  like  to 
draw  attention  to  a  point  of  very  great  importance  intimately 
connected  with  the  history  of  the  Latin  versions.  No  feature  in 
the  textual  criticism  of  the  Gospels  is  more  striking,  or  of  more 
vital  interest,  than  the  Great  Interpolations,  such  as  Mt  xvi  2,  3 
(the  Signs  of  the  Sky),  Mt  xx  28  fin.  ('Seek  from  little  to  increase'), 
Lc  xxii  43,  44  (the  Bloody  Sweat),  Joh  v  3,  4  (the  Descent  of  the 
Angel),  and  the  story  of  the  Woman  taken  in  Adultery.  Now  the 
stronghold  of  these  interpolations  is  the  Old  Latin.  As  we  trace 
the  history  of  the  text  of  the  N.T.  in  other  languages  we  find  the 
earliest  form  is  free  from  these  interpolations.  In  Greek  they  are 
absent  from  B  and  its  allies ;  in  Syriac  they  are  absent  from  the 
Sinai  Palimpsest,  a  MS  with  a  very  different  text  in  other  respects 
from  B.  But  they  seem  to  form  an  integral  part  of  the  earliest 
Latin  version.  They  are  especially  characteristic  of  the  African 
text:  a  fact  all  the  more  remarkable,  as  the  best  African  documents 
often  side  with  KB  in  rejecting  the  harmonistic  and  other  ordinary 
additions  found  in  most  other  authorities.  The  extant  European 
documents  often  contain  these  great  Interpolations,  but  in  other 
cases  they  omit  them,  and  as  a  rule  they  are  supported  in  their 
choice  by  the  'Textus  Receptus'.  The  European  Latin  thus  seems 
to  have  been  the  channel  by  which  some  of  these  valuable  fragments 

1  See  Note  iv  on 


THE   OLD    LATIN.  17 

of  ancient  tradition  have  found  their  way  into  the  dominant 
Ecclesiastical  recensions  of  the  fourth  century.  This  by  no  means 
inevitably  implies  that  the  passages  in  question  were  translated 
from  the  Latin;  it  is  equally  consistent  with  the  evidence  to 
suppose  that  the  Antiochian  revisers  were  sometimes  guided  in 
their  choice  by  the  knowledge  that  this  or  that  otherwise  doubtful 
passage  was  read  by  the  Church  of  Rome  or  of  Milan. 

Quite  distinct  from  these  great  additions  to  the  true  text  is 
a  series  of  smaller  interpolations,  which  cannot  so  certainly  be 
referred  to  independent  sources,  and  seem  rather  to  be  due  to  the 
inventiveness  of  scribes.  From  these  the  African  text  is  com 
paratively  free,  while  on  the  other  hand  the  '  European '  texts  with 
hardly  an  exception  contain  them  all.  It  is  difficult  to  separate 
the  study  of  both  these  classes  of  additions  to  the  true  text  from 
the  well-known  'Western'  additions  to  the  Acts;  these,  it  should 
never  be  forgotten,  are  quite  as  characteristic  of  the  African  texts 
of  h  (Floriacensis)  and  S.  Cyprian  as  of  Codex  Bezae.  The  ulti 
mate  local  source  of  all  these  interpolations  is  still  quite  obscure. 
It  is  tempting  to  suppose  that  they  may  have  originated  at  some 
very  early  centre  of  Christianity  such  as  Rome,  and  have  been 
thus  early  taken  to  Carthage,  and  preserved  there  through  the 
comparative  isolation  of  Roman  Africa  from  Greek  influences1. 

But  speculations  of  this  kind  do  not  take  us  beyond  the  region 
of  conjecture.  I  have  only  suggested  them  here  for  the  benefit 
of  those  who,  like  myself,  believe  that  we  shall  not  really  advance 
the  study  of  these  questions  until  the  mutual  relations  of  the 
various  forms  of  the  European  Latin  have  been  placed  on  a 
firmer  basis  by  the  laborious  but  scientific  method  of  classifying 
the  peculiarities  of  the  MSS  and  quotations  which  have  come  down 
to  us. 

1  See  Note  v. 


NOTE   I. 

The  use  of  the  LXX  text  of  Daniel  in  Latin  writers. 

That  the  Church  used  Theodotion's  text  of  Daniel,  and  not  the 
LXX,  is  a  statement  which  has  been  commonly  repeated  since  the 
days  of  S.  Jerome.  Nevertheless  there  remain  considerable  traces 
of  the  use  of  the  LXX  in  the  earlier  stages  of  the  Latin  Church ; 
a  collection  of  the  available  evidence  may  therefore  prove  not 
uninteresting.  Excluding  S.  Irenaeus  as  not  truly  a  Latin  Father, 
the  four  writers  who  quote  Daniel  sufficiently  for  our  purpose  are 
Tertullian,  S.  Cyprian,  the  author  of  De  Pascha  Computus,  and 
S.  Victorinus  of  Pettau.  Of  these  the  first  and  the  last  used  the 
LXX,  the  author  of  De  Pascha  Computus  used  Theodotion,  and 
S.  Cyprian  used  a  mixed  text. 

1.     Tertullian. 

Tertullian's  quotations  from  Daniel  are  given  below  side  by 
side  with  Origen's  revision  of  the  LXX  as  it  stands  in  Dr  Swete's 
edition.  That  edition  here  rests  upon  the  Greek  cursive  Cod. 
Chisianus  (87)  and  the  Syro-Hexaplar  version  (Syr).  Origen's 
work  was  provided  with  asterisks  and  obeli  as  in  the  other  books 
of  the  Bible,  the  asterisk  (*)  being  supposed  to  represent  an 
addition  from  the  Hebrew  not  found  in  the  original  LXX  text, 
while  the  obelus  (-=-)  marks  words  belonging  indeed  to  the  LXX 
but  absent  from  the  Hebrew.  An  interesting  result  of  the  present 
investigation  is  that  we  gain  some  idea  of  how  much  these  marks 
are  to  be  depended  upon  in  our  two  authorities. 


THE   LXX   TEXT   OF   DANIEL.  19 

The  quotations  from  '  Tert  '  aduersus  ludaeos  are  not  included 
in  this  list. 

Dan  i  17 
adv.  Psych  §  9  (Oehl.  i  863)  LXX 

Dedit  enim  Deus  adolescentulis  /cat  rots  veai/tWois  eSwKcv  6 

scientiam  et  intellegentiarn  ^iricrrri^v  KOL  crvvtcriv  KOL  < 

in  omni  litteratura  tv  irdo-y  ypa/xyxaTt/cr; 

et  Danieli  KCU.  TW  AaviT/A.  ISoo/cc 

in  omni  uerbo  ev  irai/ri  ptjfJMTt  KCU  opa/xart 

et  in  somniis  et  in  omni  sophia.  Kat  ivvirviois  KOL  kv  Trdcry  cro^)ta 

•f  /cat   ev  TT.  o-o<|)ia  87 


Theodotion  has:  Kat  rd  TraiSdpta  raOra,  ot  T^crapes  aurot,  ^Sw/cei'  airrols  6  ^eos 
fftveffiv  Kai  (^pbv^ffLV  tv  -jrdcrr]  ypafjL/maTiicfi  Kai  <ro(f>ig.  '  Kdl  Aai/iTjX  avvTJKev  iv  Trda-rj  opdcret 
Kal  tw-jrviois.  So  B  ;  A  and  Q  have  minor  variations  in  the  opening  words. 

Tertullian's  words  are  not  an  exact  quotation,  but  they  contain 
the  decisive  phrase  at  the  end  corresponding  to  KOI  ev  Trt'iarj 
crania,  a  clause  not  found  in  Theodotion.  The  construction  also 
of  Danieli  (=  TM  Aavirjk)  agrees  with  LXX  against  Theodotion. 


Dan  ii  10—24 
adv.  Psych  §  7  (Oehl.   I  862) 

Circa  somnium  regis  Babylonis  omnes  turbantur  sophistae,  iiegaiit 
ultro  de  praestaiitia  hurnana  posse  cognosci,  solus  Daniel  Deo  fidens... 
spatium  tridui  postnlat,  cum  sua  f  rater  nitate  ieiunat,  atque  ita  orationibus 
commendatis  et  ordinem  et  significationern  somnii  per  omnia  instruitnr, 
tyranni  sopkistis  parcitur,  Deus  glorificatur,  Daniel  honoratur. 

The  italicised  portions  of  this  summary  occur  only  in  the 
LXX.  For  the  wise  men  of  Babylon  LXX  has  in  vv.  14  and  24 
ao(f>i(TTai,  Theodotion  crotyoL  In  vv.  17b,  18  LXX  has  rot?  avve- 
TaipoLS  VTreSei^e  iravra,  l8Kal  7rapi]<yyeL\e  vrjarrelav  Kal  Serjaiv 
/cal  Ti/jiayplav,  where  Theodotion  has  rot?  <£/Xot<?  avrov  eyvwptcrev 


TO  prj/jia.     ™Kal  oltcTeipfJiovs 


2—2 


20 


THE   OLD   LATIN. 


Dan  ii  34,  44 
adv.  Marc  iii  §  7  (Oehl.  n  130) 

et  petra  sane  ilia  apud  Danielem         :;4eo>s  OTOU 
de  monte  praecisa  quac 
imaginem  saecularium  rcgnorum 
com  minuet  et  conteret. 


cf  LXX 

\tOo$  e£  o 


•"irara^et  Se  KCU  a<f>avi(rct 
/?au-iXcias  ravra?... 


Theodotion  has  in  rer.  34  (  +  oy  A) 
ver.  44  XeTrrwet  /cat  \iK/nri<rei  irAffas 


AQ)  X/0os  e£  opovs,  and  in 


Here  the  text  followed  by  Tertullian  was  nearer  Theodotion. 
Compare  however  the  quotation  from  Dan  vii  given  below,  which 
immediately  follows  this  allusion. 


Dan  iii  161'— 18 


Scorp§8  (Oehl.  i  516) 

Non  habemus  necessitatem 
respondendi  liuic  tuo  imperio. 

17est  enim  Deus  noster 

quern  colimus 
poteus  eruere  nos 
de  fornace  ignis 

et  ex  manibus  tuis. 


LXX 


OV 


TTt    r 

(TOL. 

€OTt  yap 


ravrrj 


6V 

os  eo-rt  Swaros  e 

€K      T^S      KCLfJiiVOV      TOV 


/cai  CK  TWI/  ^ctpcoj/  trow,  /?ao-tXei), 


18  et  tune  manifestum 
fiet  tibi 


KCU.  T07£ 

o~ot  coral,    *   /?arTiAe£ix, 
quod  neque  idolo  tuo  famulabimur,      OTL  0{5re  T<3  €ZSoj'Xa>  (TOV  Xarpfvofiev 
nee  imaginem  tuam  auream  0{JT€  Tjj  t[K6vL  vov    ~ 

quam  statuisti  ^ 

adorabimus.  r 


om  ov  Syr 

Theodotion  has  according  to  cod  B:  Ov  xpf^av  Zx°tjL€l'  T/^fts  TrepJ  TOV 
TroKpiOrjisai  trot.      17 e'crrti'  7<zp  0e6s,  y  T/yLteTj  XaTpevo/J-ev ,   Swards  e 

^/C   T^S   KO.fJ.ivOV  TOV  TTVpO?    TTJS    K 0.10 /J.^  V  T)  S  '     Kttt    f/C    rtDl/    ^fl/3U!J/   (TOU,  ^3aO"l\fD,   ^ 


THE   LXX   TEXT   OF   DANIEL.  21 


rjfjas'    Kai  f'af  ^77,  yixixrrbi'  &TTW  ffoi,   f3a<ri\eu,   on  TOIS  deois  <rov  ov 
Kai  rfj  eiK6vt  $  ftrTTjcras  ov  irpovKWOvptv. 

The  following  are  the  more  important  variants  of  AQ.     17  0eos]  +  TJ/J,UI>  cv  oupct?ots 
Bab  m»,  o  0s  rjfj.wv  ev  ovvois  A  18  ecrrw]  ecrrat  Q         et/coj/i]  +  TT\  XPVffrl  ^-Q 

Here  the  spaced  type  exhibits  seven  points  where  Theodotion 
differs  from  the  united  evidence  of  LXX  and  Tertullian. 

In  de  Res.  Cam  §  58  (Oehl.  II  545)  and  de  Oral  §  15  (Oehl.  I 
567)  the  sarabarae  and  tiarae  of  Shadrach  and  his  companions  are 
mentioned.  Both  garments  occur  in  the  LXX,  ra<?  rtopa?  Dan 
iii  21  where  they  are  thrown  into  the  flames,  and  ra  aapaflapa 
Dan  iii  94  where  they  come  out.  In  Dan  iii  21,  according  to 
Theodotion,  both  garments  are  mentioned  together. 

Dan  iii  92  (25) 
adv.  Marc  iv  §  10  (Oehl.   II  179) 

...nomen  sortitus  est  Christi,  et  appellationem  filii  hominis,  lesus 
scilicet  Creatoris.  hie  erat  uisus  Babylonis  regi  infornace  cum  martyribus 
suis  quartuSj  tamquain  Jilius  ho  minis. 

adv.  Marc  iv  §  21   (Oehl.  n  213) 

Perspice...cum  rege  Babylonio  fornacem  eius  ardentem,  efc  inuenies 
illic  tamquam  filium  hominis  ',  nondum  enim  nere  erat,  nonclum  scilicet 
natus  ex  liomine. 

adv.  Prax  §  16  (Oehl.  n  676) 

infomace  Babylonii  regis  quartus  apparuit,  quamquam  Jilius  hominis 
est  dictus. 

LXX  :    KOI  rj  o^ao-is  rov  rfrdprov  o/xotw/xa  dyye'Xov  Otov. 
Theodotion  :   Kai  77  opao-ts  TOT)  rerapTov  6/xoia  vtw  Oeov. 


The  original  Aramaic  is  pn/K  1^7  HD1.  There  is,  I  believe, 
no  authority  which  supports  Tertullian  here. 

In  de  Paenit  §  12  (Oehl.  n  G64)  and  de  Pat  §  13  (Oehl.  n  610) 
Tertullian  uses  the  phrase  '  septenni  squalore  '.  This  is  nearer 
the  errj  eTrra  of  LXX  in  Dan  iv  29  than  the  evrra  /caipol  of 
Theodotion. 


22 


THE   OLD   LATIN. 


Dan  vii  10 


adv.   Prax  §  3  (Oehl.   n  657) 
Milies  centies  centena  milia 
adsistebant  ei 
et  milies  centena  milia 
apparebant  ei. 

appropcrabant  ei  codd. 


LXX 


f.p.Trc.vov  avrov 
Kat 


7rap€io~T77K6icrai>  aura). 


Theodotion  has  ^i\iai  %i\id8es  e\eiTovp>yovv  CLVTM,  tcai 

s  7rap[e]icmJK€i(Tai>  avra},  which  is  also  found  in  Justin 
Tryph  §  31.  The  inversion  of  the  clauses  witnessed  by  Tertullian 
is  found  in  S.  Clement  of  Rome  (Ep  §  34),  but  with  eXeirovpyovv 
avT(o  instead  of  edepdirevov  avrov1. 


Dan  vii  13,  14 


adv.   Marc  iii  §  7  (Oehl.   n   130)  LXX 

Et  ecce  cum  nubibus  caeli 

tamquam  tilius  hominis  ueniens, 

uenit  usque  ad  ueterum  dierum, 

[et]  aderat  in  conspeetu  eius, 

et     qui     adsistebant     adduxerunt       Kat  ot  Trapeo-rr/Kores  Trap^trai/  avrw 

ilium. 
14  et  data  est  ei  potestas  regia 


Kat  tbou  CTTI  T(OI/  y€<jf>eAu)j/  rov  ovpavov 
CDS  vios  di/^pajTrou 
Kat  oos  TraAatos  tjt 


avru  e^owta   *    Kat 


et  omnes  nation es  terrae 

secundtun  genera 

et  onmis  gloria  famulabunda, 

et  potestas  eius  usque  in  aeuum 

quae  non  auferetur, 

et  regnum  eius 

quod  non  uitiabitur. 


Kat  Trai/ra  TO.  evrj  7179 
Kara  ycvrj 

Kat  Tracra  8o£a  aura) 
Kat  TI  €^ou(rta  avrov  e^ovcrta 
lyrts  ov  fjirj  dpOrj, 
Kat  ?/  /JacrtActa  avrov, 
ou  /XT)  <j)@a.pfi. 


1  Apparebant  (  =  t6epa.irtvov  apparently)  also  occurs  in  Tyconius  (Re<j  p.  60),  but 
the  clauses  are  not  inverted.  In  Tyc  2,  in  an  allusion  to  Dan  ii  34,  45,  commoluisse 
appears  to  correspond  rather  to  the  <rvvr)\6r)ffe  of  LXX  than  to  the  iXtirrvvev  of 
Theodotion.  On  the  other  hand  the  very  curious  reference  in  Tyc  5  to  Dan  xi  36, 
38  is  nearer  Theodotion. 


THE   LXX   TEXT   OF   DANIEL.  23 

Variants  of  Tertullian  Variants  of  Justin  Tryph  §  31 

adv.  Marc  iv  §  39  (Oehl.  n  264)  ^  ^Ta   . 

Ecce cum caeli nubibus  tamquam  filius  rjpxeTo...iraprji']    epxb/j,fvos'    Kal   r)\8fi> 

hominis  adueniens,  et  cetera.     Et  data       e'ws  TOV  TraXcuou   r&v   ij^pCjv   Kal   irapiji> 
est  illi  regia  potestas...et  gloria  omnis       evuiriov  avTou 
seruiens  illi,   et   potestas   eius    aeterna  iraprjaav  aury]  Trpoa-^yayov  avrbv 

quae  non  aaferetur,  et  regnum  eius  quod  avrtj)  Xa-rpeuoixm]  om.  curry 

non  corrumpetur.  rjrts  2°]  OHI.  ( =  Cypr  92) 

Compare  also 

de  Came  Christ  §  15  et  Daniel :  et  super  nubes  tamquam  filius  hominis. 
adv.  Marc  iii  §  24:    illo  scilicet  filio  hominis  ueniente  in  nubibus  secundum 
Danielem. 

adv.  Marc  iv  §  10 :  filius  hominis  ueniens  cum  caeli  nubibus. 

Theodotion  has:  Kal  Idov  fj-era  (eirl  Q)  TUV  ve<j>e\ui>  TOV  ovpavov  ws  vibs  avdpuirov 
Kal  ews  TOV  iraXaiov  r&v  TtfJiepuv  tydaaev  Kal  Trpoo-^x^7?  «^rV-  uxal  at)ry 
l  T]  ripi]  Kal  i)  /3atri\e^a,  Kal  Trdvres  oi  Xaot,  <f>v\ai,  Kal  7X0)0- crat 
8ov\eijovffiv  avT<$"  i]  e^ovala  avrov  ^ovaia  atcovtos  TJTIS  ov  TrapeXetvo-eTai,  /cat  77 
/SacrtXeta  avrov  ov  5ia(f)6apr]<rcTai. 

I  have  marked  the  peculiarities  of  Theodotion  which  are  repre 
sented  neither  in  Tertullian  nor  LXX  by  spaced  type.  What 
however  is  most  important  to  observe  here  is  the  close  agreement 
of  Tertullian  with  Justin  Martyr.  The  Greek  text  implied  by 
Tertullian  does  not  differ  from  that  of  our  only  MS  of  Justin 
except  in  three  small  points.  In  ver.  13  the  MS  of  Justin  inserts 
Kal  between  epxo/J<evo<;  and  rfkOev,  and  in  ver.  14  it  has  the  full 
phrase  e^ovaia  Kal  Ti^rj  fiaatXiKij.  In  these  two  points  Tertullian 
is  supported  by  Cypr  92  (see  below),  and  a  glance  at  the  Hexaplar 
text  shews  that  in  the  second  at  least  Tertullian  preserves  the 
true  reading.  In  the  Hexaplar  MSS  the  metobelus  marking  the 
end  of  an  interpolation  has  been  placed  after  paaiXiKij  instead  of 
after  n^rj,  so  that  the  words  Kal  rt^rj  are  probably  an  interpolation 
in  Justin.  On  the  other  hand  Cyprian  and  Justin  both  omit  the 
second  TJTLS. 

The  remainder  of  Tertullian's  references  to  Daniel  consist  of 
allusions  to  Dan  ix,  x,  in  adv.  Psychicos,  which  where  they  follow 
the  Biblical  text  agree  with  LXX  against  Theodotion. 

Dan  ix  1—4,  21,  23 

adv.  Psych  §  7  (Oehl.  i  862)  LXX 

laanno  primo  regis  Darii  lVErov9    Trpwrov    €TT!    Aapetov     TOV 


2})cu?u  ex  recoyitatn 
praedicatorum  temporum 

ab  Hieremia 

•''dedit  faciem  suam  Deo 

in  ieiuniis  efc  sacco  et  cinere 

adv.  Psych  §  10  (Oehl.  i  867) 

'...Daniel,  anno  primo  regis  Darii 
cum  ieiunus  in  sacco  et  cinere 

4exomologesin  Deo  ageret, 

21  Et  adhuc  inquit 

loqueiite  me  in  oratione, 

ecce  uir  quern  uideram 

in  sornnis  initio 

uelociter  uolans 

appropinquauit  mihi 

quasi  hora  uespertini  sacrificii. 

ndv.  Psych  §  7   (Oehl.  I  862) 

8bueni  inquit  demonstrare  tibi 
qua  tenus  miserabilis  es. 


THE   OLD   LATIN. 

2lleyoj     Aai/n/X     oifvotjOrjv     tv     Tats 


TOV     apl/A01/     Ttol>     €T<OI>     OT€ 

Trpooray/xa  TJ)  yrj 


fJiOV      €7Tl 


3KOL      l8(OKa      TO 

Kvptoi/  TOV  Otov 
cvptiv  Trpoo-ev^v  Kat 

Kat  aaKKio  KOL  (TTTOOW. 


v 


4  Kat   7rpoo-Y)v£d[j.r)v   ?rpos   Kvpiov  TOV 


/JiOV, 


Kat   €Tt 
Aa\Ol)l/TOS  /XOV   €!/   TT 

Kat  tSou  6  ai/r)/3  6V  tloov 

fV  TO)  V7TVO)  )U,OU   T7/V 


Trpotn/yytere  /xot 

ei/  wpa  ^vcrtas  ecrTrep  11/175. 


23h  ...Kai  eyco  77X^01' 
ort  eXeetvos  cT. 


(rot 


3  in  ieiuuiis]  o?».  in  Ed.  pr/nc.  cum  ieiunus]  cum  ieiuniis  Ed.  princ. 


Dan  x  1—12 


§  9  (Oehl.   i  863) 
aAnno  deuique  tertio 
Cyri  regis  Persarum 
cum  in  recogitatu 
incidisset  uisionis. . . 

1   in    recogitatu]    regicogitatum   Ed. 
princ. 


LXX 


i/  TO  tviavTw  TO  Trpo/ro) 
Kvpov  TOV  /?ao-tXe'ws  II cpawv . . . 


1  Theod  has  Tpiry  for  Trpciry  with 
Tert,  but  differs  from  both  LXX  and  Tert 
in  having  dXi/i/xa  for  ZXatov, 
dvfMiwv  for  ar^pWTroj  e'Xeeij'os  e?, 
for  TaTTfivudr^vai,  and  in  other  points. 


THE   LXX   TEXT   OF   DANIEL. 


25 


3apTOV 

Kat  Kpeas  KCU  oTi/og 

OUK  eur^X^cv  €is  TO  O-TO/AO, 

iXcuoi/  OVK  •^Xenj/djj.rjv 

ews  TOV  o-vvTeXeVai  /xe 

Tas  Tpets  c/88o/xaSas  TWI/ 


11KOL   €17T€  /XOt 

Actvr^X,  av#pw7TO9  eXceivos  el'... 

12l)Mr)  <j>o(3ov,  Aai/ir/X. 

OTI  aTTo  TT/S  7y/xepas  TI^S  TrpcuT^? 

779   cS(OKO,9   TO   TTpOQ-WTTOV   O"OV 

evavTioi/  Kupi'ou  TOV  $eou  o-ov, 
TO  pr^xa  o-ou, 

'  o-ov. 


2In  illis  inquit  diebus  2cV  Tats 

ego  Daniel  eram  lugens  eyw  Aaw)X 

per  tres  hebdomadas, 
3panem  suauem  non  edi, 
caro  et  uinum 

non  introierunt  in  os  meum, 
oleo  unctus  non  sum, 
donee  consummarentur 
tres  hebdomades, 
quibus  transactis  angelus 
emissus  est  taliter  alloquens: 
11  a  Daniel  homo  es  miserabilis, 
12bne  timueris, 
quoniam  ex  die  prima 
qua  dedisti  animam  tuam 
recogitatui  et  humiliation! 
cor  am  Deo 

exauditum  est  uerbum  tuum, 
et  ego  introiui  uerbo  tuo. 
2  lugens]  legens  Ed.  princ. 

The  general  result  of  this  lengthy  comparison  may  be  stated  in 
a  few  words.  The  text  of  Daniel  used  by  Tertullian  is  a  form  of 
the  LXX  differing  slightly  from  Origen's  edition,  but  agreeing 
most  closely  with  the  quotations  of  Justin  Martyr1. 

2.     S.  Cyprian. 

The  use  of  the  LXX  of  Daniel  once  recognised  in  the  Latin 
Church  from  a  study  of  the  quotations  of  Tertullian,  it  will  not  be 
necessary  to  treat  S.  Cyprian  in  such  detail.  I  give  below  his  not 
very  numerous  quotations  from  Daniel,  marking  what  is  distinc- 

1  I  cannot  resist  adding  two  very  important  deductions,  which  immediately 
follow  from  what  has  been  stated  above,  though  they  deal  with  questions  not  directly 
connected  with  the  Old  Latin.  The  first  is,  that  the  small  range  of  pre-Hexaplaric 
variants  in  the  LXX  text  of  Daniel  now  known  to  us  comes  from  the  poverty  of  our 
material  rather  than  from  the  good  preservation  of  the  text.  The  second  deduction 
is,  that  the  text  of  Justin's  quotations  is  very  fairly  preserved.  Justin's  text  rests 
upon  a  single  late  MS,  and  it  has  been  conjectured  (e.g.  by  Hatch,  Essays  in  Biblical 
Greek,  p.  190)  that  the  longer  quotations  are  entirely  untrustworthy.  But  the 
almost  complete  agreement  of  Justin's  long  quotation  of  Dan  vii  9 — 28  in  Tnjph  §  31 
with  the  text  of  Tertullian,  wherever  the  two  quotations  run  parallel,  shews  that  no 
systematic  alterations  of  this  kind  have  been  made. 


26  THE   OLD   LATIN. 

tively  from  the  LXX  in  bold-face  type,  and  what  is  distinctively 
from  Theodotion  in  italics.  In  quoting  the  Testimonia  I  have 
chiefly  followed  Hartel's  L  and  the  Oxford  MS  Ol  (0.  Lat.  Bibl. 
Texts,  ii  123). 

Test  ii   17  (Hartel  84)  =  Dan  ii  31—35 

Et  ecce  imago  nimis  magna,  et  contemplatio  eius  imaginis  metuenda 
et  elata  stabat  contra  to,  *-cuius  caput  fuit  ex  auro  boiio,  pectus  et 
brachia  eius  argentea,  ueuter  et  femora  aerea,  33pedes  autem  ex  parte 
quidem  ferrei  ex  parte  autem  fictiles ;  34 quoad  usque  abscisus  est 
lapis  de  monte  sine  manibus  concidentium,  et  percussit  imaginem  super 
pedes  ferreos  [et]  fictilt-s  et  comminuit  eos  35minutatim.  et  factum 
est  simul  ferruin  et  testa  et  aerameiitum  et  argentum  et  aurum — 
facta  suut  minuta  quasi  palea  aut  puluis  in  area  aestate,  et  uenti- 
lauit  ilia  uentus  ita  ut  nihil  remanserit  ex  illis,  et  lapis  qui 
percussit  imagiiiem  factus  est  mons  magiius  et  inpleuit  totam  terrain. 

Selected  variants  (incl.  Firmicus  Maternus  20).  31   imago,  imago  Firm 

ipsius  Firm  33  quidem]  om.  Oj  34  abscissus  LMB  ferreos  et]  om.  A;  om. 
et  BOj*  35  aut]  ut  Firm  remanserint  LOj*  ex.]  in  A.  Firm;  om.  E01O3 

Test  in   10  (Hart.   121);  ad  Fort  11  (Hart.  337);  Ep  6  (Hart.   483); 
Ep  58  (Hart.   G60)  =-  Dan  iii  16—18 

16Responderunt  autem  Sidrac  Misac  Abdenago,  et  dixerunt  regi : 
Nabuchodonosor  rex,  11011  opus  est  nobis  de  hoe  uerbo  respondere  tibi. 
17est  enim  Deus  cui  nos  seruimus  potens  eripere  nos  de  camino  ignis 
ardeiitis;  et  de  manibus  tuis,  rex,  liberabit  nos.  18et  si  non,  notuni  sit 
tibi  quia  diis  tuis  non  seruimus  et  imaginem  auream  quam  statuisti  lion 
adoramus. 

16  resp....dix.]  om.  ad  Fort,  Epp  uerbo]  sermone  M(Test)  Q(Ep  6) 

17  rex]  om.  Ep  58    U(Test)  Q(Ep  G)  18  si  non]  om.  W  (Test)        quoniam  Ep  6 

A  (Test)        deseruimus  LBOj  (Test) 

de  Laps  31   (Hartel  260)  =  Daii  iii  25 

Stans  Azarias  precatus  est  et  aperuit  os  suum  et  exomologesim 
faciebat  Deo  simul  cum  sodalibus  suis  in  medio  igni. 

de  Dom.   Or  8  (Hartel  271) -Dan  iii  51 

Tune  illi  tres  quasi  ex  uno  ore  hyrnnum  canebant  et  benedicebant 
[Deum]. 

quasi]  tanquam  S  deum]  8 ;  dniii  G ;  om.  W 


THE   LXX   TEXT   OF   DANIEL. 


27 


de  Op.  et  Eleemos  5  (Hartel  377)  =  Dari  iv  24 
Propterea,  rex,  consilium  meum  placecit  tibi,  et  peccata  tua  eleemosynis 
redime,  et  iniustitias  tuas  miserationibus  pauperum,  et  erit  Deus  patiens 
peccatis  tuis. 

Test  II  26  (Hartel  92)  =  Dan  vii  13,   14  (cf.  Tert  quoted  above, 

p.  22  f.) 

Videbam  in  uisu  nocte,  et  ecce  in  nubibus  caeli  quasi  films  hominis 
ueniens ;  uenit  usque  ad  ueterum  dierum  et  stetit  in  conspectu  eius,  et 
qui  adsistebant  obtulerunt  eum.  14et  data  est  ei  potestas  regia, 
et  omnes  reges  terrae  per  genus,  et  omnis  claritas  seruiens  ei, 
et  potestas  eius  aeterna  quae  non  auferetur  et  regnum  eius  rion 
corrumpetur. 

nocte]  noctes  L*;  noctis  B  per  genus]  et  regnum  Firmicits  Maternus 

seruient  B  Firm 

de  Laps  31  (Hartel  260)  -  Dan  ix  4—6 

(Daniel  quoque...in  sacco  ac  cinere  uolutatur  exomologesim  faciens 
dolenter  et  dicens :)  Domine  Deus  magnus  et  fortis  et  metuendus 
qui  seruas  testamentum  et  miserationem  eis  qui  te  diligunt  et  con- 
seruant  inperia  tua.  5peccauimus,  facinus  admisimus,  inpii  fuimus, 
transgressi  sumus  ac  deseruimus  praecepta  tua  et  iudicia  tua;  (!non 
audiuimus  puerorum  tuorum  prophetarum  quae  locufci  sunt  in  nomine 
tuo  super  reges  nostros  et  onmes  gentes  et  super  oninem  terrain, 
tibi  Domine,  tibi  iustitia ;  nobis  autem  confusio. 

Test  i  4  (Hartel  42)  =  Dan  xii  4b,  7h 

Muni  sermones  et  signa  libruin  usque  ad  tempus  consummationis, 
quoad  discant  multi  et  inpleatur  agnitio.  7bquoniam  cum  fiet  dispersio 
cognoscent  omnia  haec. 

ad  Fort  11  (Hartel  337);  Ep  58  (Hartel  661)  =  Dan  xiv  5 
Nihil  colo  ego  nisi  Dominum  Deum  meum  qui  condidit  caelum 
et  terrain. 

The  difference  of  types  makes  clearly  evident  the  mixed  char 
acter  of  the  text  in  these  nineteen  verses.  Dan  iv  24  and  xii  4,  7 
are  wholly  from  Theodotion.  On  the  other  hand  the  quotations 
from  the  additions  to  the  original  Daniel — two  verses  from  the 


28  THE   OLD   LATIN. 

Song  of  the  Three  Children  and  one  from  Bel  and  the  Dragon — 
predominantly  follow  the  LXX. 

Turning  to  the  verses  which  run  parallel  with  the  quotations 
of  Tertullian,  it  will  be  noticed  at  once  that  where  S.  Cyprian  uses 
the  LXX  his  text  is  in  fundamental  agreement  with  them,  in  spite 
of  some  difference  in  Latinity.  They  both  in  fact  here  use  the 
peculiar  form  of  the  LXX  found  in  Justin  Martyr.  Nevertheless 
S.  Cyprian  does  not  use  altogether  the  same  text  as  Tertullian. 
It  might  have  been  conjectured  that  both  Fathers  quoted  from  the 
same  mixed  version  of  LXX  and  Theodotion,  and  that  Tertullian 
had  happened  to  quote  only  passages  where  the  LXX  element 
largely  predominates,  while  on  the  other  hand  the  element  from 
Theodotion  is  clearly  visible  in  S.  Cyprian.  But  this  cannot  be 
the  case.  Dan  iii  16 — 18  is  cited  by  both  writers,  in  Tertullian 
from  the  LXX,  but  in  S.  Cyprian  almost  entirely  from  Theodotion. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  conjecture  a  fresh  translation  into  Latin 
of  a  corrupted  LXX  text  to  account  for  the  peculiarities  of  S. 
Cyprian's  Daniel.  We  know  from  de  Pascha  Computus  that  a 
pure  version  from  Theodotion  was  current  in  Africa  in  the  life 
time  of  S.  Cyprian.  We  also  see  from  a  comparison  of  S.  Cyprian's 
quotations  with  those  of  Tertullian  that  where  he  follows  the  LXX 
he  agrees  with  Tertullian,  i.e.  with  the  primitive  African  version. 
It  is  therefore  probable  that  his  MS  was  a  copy  of  the  old  Latin 
version  from  the  LXX,  half-corrected  to  the  new  Latin  version 
from  Theodotion.  Traces  of  the  process  can  yet  be  seen.  In  Dan 
ii  35  T)J?3  'like  chaff'  is  translated  by  LXX  coael  XeTrrorepov 
d%vpov,  but  by  Theodotion  auael  /coviopros.  S.  Cyprian  has 
minuta  quasi  palea  aut  pidids.  The  last  two  words  are  evidently 
a  marginal  gloss  from  Theodotion,  which  has  been  added  to  S. 
Cyprian's  form  of  the  LXX  reading.  That  S.  Cyprian's  text  of 
Daniel  reappears  in  Firmicus  Maternus,  and  partly  in  Lactantius, 
causes  no  difficulty;  here,  as  elsewhere,  these  writers  copy  the 
Biblical  passages  directly  froin  the  Testimonia. 

Corruption  from  Theodotion  does  not  however  explain  all  the 
peculiarities  of  S.  Cyprian's  citations.  In  many  points  his  text  in 
passages  which  predominantly  follow  the  LXX  differs  both  from  it 
and  from  Theodotion.  This  feature,  remarkable  in  so  accurate  a 
quoter  as  S.  Cyprian,  must  be  taken  in  conjunction  with  his  agree- 


THE   LXX   TEXT   OF   DANIEL.  29 

ment  with  Justin  and  Tertullian  in  vii  13,  14.  It  is  evident  that 
the  Origenian  recension  was  not  the  only  form  in  which  the  LXX 
text  of  Daniel  was  circulated  in  early  times1. 

3.     S.  Victorinus  of  Pettau. 

The  only  non-African  Latin  evidence  for  the  LXX  Daniel  is 
found  in  the  scholia  of  S.  Victorinus  of  Pettau  upon  the  Apocalypse. 
The  clearest  allusions  to  Daniel  occur  in  the  lately  recovered  con 
clusion  to  the  work,  published  for  the  first  time  in  the  Theo- 
logisches  Literaturblatt  of  Apr.  26,  1895  by  Prof.  Haussleitcr 
from  MS  Ottob.  3288  in  the  Vatican  (=  A).  This  MS  is  late  (15th 
cent.)  and  very  corrupt ;  I  give  therefore  an  emended  text  with 
the  various  readings  of  the  MS,  and  of  Dr  Haussleiter's  text,  in  the 
notes.  As  in  the  case  of  S.  Cyprian,  readings  agreeing  with  the 
LXX  against  Theodotion  are  marked  in  bold-face  type.  The 
extract  begins  at  Th.  Ltbt.  col  197,  line  23. 

Dan  ii  40  Quartum  autem  regnum  durissimum  et  potentissimum  tam- 

quam    ferrum,    quod    domat    omnia    et    omnem    arborem 

41,  43  excidet.     Et  in   nouissimo   in   se,  inquit,  tamquam  testa 

ferrum  mixtum  miscebimtur  homines,  et  non  erunt  con- 

44a  cordes  neque  consentanei.     Et  in  illis  temporibus 

vii  18  suscitabit    Dominus    Dens  regnum   aliud,   quod    suscipient 

ii  44b  inquit,  sancti  Summi  Domini   regnum,  et  regnum  hoc  alia 

gens  nou  iudagabit,  namque  Dominus  percutiet  et  indagabit 

omnia  regna  terrae,  et  ipsud  manebit  in  perpetuum. 

potissimum  A  omnia]  Haussl  •  oram  A  arborem]  ualorem  A  Haussl 

in  se]  ipse  A;  om.  Haussl          testa]  testum  A  (cf.  Iren  v  26);  testae  Haussl  in 

illis]  Haussl;  michi  A  regnum]  A;  regum  Haussl  omnia  regna  terrae] 

uiam  regnature  A;  uniuersa  regna  Haussl 

1  A  full  discussion  of  the  composition  of  'Tert'  adv.  ludaeos  ought  to  follow 
here,  but  I  am  unwilling  to  write  an  Excursus  to  an  Excursus,  and  shall  confine 
myself  to  stating  the  main  facts  concerning  the  text  of  Daniel  found  in  the  work. 
(1)  In  the  sections  borrowed  from  Tert  adv.  Marc  iii,  the  adv.  ludaeos  mainly 
follows  the  text  of  Tert.  Where  it  differs,  it  almost  invariably  agrees  with  the 
Testimonia.  (2)  In  the  sections  not  taken  from  adv.  Marc  there  are  many  points  of 
contact  with  the  Testimonia.  One  very  striking  instance,  the  addition  of  con- 
cidentium  to  Dan  ii  34,  is  noticed  in  the  text  of  this  Essay,  p.  7,  note.  (3)  Dan  ix 
24 — 27,  a  passage  not  quoted  by  S.  Cyprian,  is  quoted  in  adv.  ludaeos  §  9  from 
Theodotion.  The  same  verses  are  quoted  in  de  Pascha  Computus,  and  the  two 


30  THE   OLD   LATIN. 

I  expect  that  in  the  MS  '  oram  '  is  written  oia,  '  ipse  '  is  written 
ise,  and  '  niam  regnaturo  '  uia  regna  tre. 

The  corresponding  passages  in  the  LXX  Greek  are 

ver.  40  Kai  /Jao-tXcta  Tf.ro.pTr]  l(T\vpa.  *  cos  o  (TiSrjpos*  axTTrep  6  o-t'S^pos 
o  Sa/xu£wv  Trai/ra,  Kat  *  GJS  6  ari8r]po<sx  TTO.V  SeVSpov  CK/COTTTWV  .  .  . 

When  the  interpolations  under  asterisks  are  removed,  this 
agrees  verbally  with  S.  Victorinus,  as  restored.  Theodotion  is 
quite  different,  and  has  nothing  about  cutting  down  trees. 

ver.  41,  43  Kai.../?ao-iXet'a  aXXr?  St/Acpr/s  carat  ev  aurf?  .  .  .  4:5  Kat  ok  etSes 
Toi'  aiSrjpov  drape  fjuyfjitrov  a/>ta  TO)  TT^XiVa)  oVrpaKa),  Kat  (ru/M/ztyets  €(7OVTat 
ets  yei'tmi'  avQpwirwv.  OVK  eo-oi/rat  8e  o/xovoowre?  oure  cwoowres  dXA.?^- 
Xots... 

Here  again  the  agreement  of  S.  Victorinus  with  LXX  is  very 
marked.  Theodotion's  version  of  the  last  clause  quoted  is  /cal  OVK 
ecrovrai  irpoorKoXXwfjievoi  ouro?  /juerd  TOVTOV. 

The  LXX  version  of  the  remaining  clauses  alluded  to  is 


ver.    44a    Kai   cV  rot?   ^poi/ot?  TOW  /Sao-iXeco^  TOVTWV  aTtjo-ei  o  Oeos  TOV 
ovpavov  fiaviXeiav  aAXr^i/. 

rer.  44b  Kat  avTy  r)   /?a<rtXet'a  a\Xo  Wvos   ov   /x^   eacn?,   Trara^et  Sc  Kai 
Ta9  ^ao-tXet'a? 


Dan   vii   18   both   in   LXX   and   Theod   is   7rapa\ij\jfovTai 
(3aai\€iav  (iyioi  'T^iarov. 

Immediately  preceding  the  extracts  here  given,  the  last  clause 
of  Dan  ii  35  is  referred  to  with  a  text  which  evidently  implies 
eTrXtipayaev  as  in  Theodotion  and  Cypr.  Test  n  17,  not  eWrafe  as 
in  the  Hexaplar  LXX. 

Besides  these  clear  instances  of  the  use  of  the  LXX  of  Daniel 
there  are  two  allusions  to  Dan  xi  37,  38,  45  in  S.  Victorinus 
(Migne,  v  338,  340  =  Beatus,  p.  441,  440).  For  the  sake  of  com 
pleteness  I  give  them  below  'with  the  corresponding  LXX. 

quotations,  though  differing  in  Latinity,  agree  in  supporting  B*,  though  the  gloss 
in  ix  27  is  also  known  to  the  author  of  adv.  ludaeos.  It  would  indeed  be  remarkable, 
if  the  disputed  treatise  adv.  ludaeos  were  really  the  work  of  Tertullian,  that  the  only 
use  of  Theodotion  in  all  his  works  should  occur  there,  and  that  the  quotations  in  it 
should  have  such  a  tendency  to  agree  with  the  Testimonia, 


THE   LXX   TEXT   OF    DANIEL.  31 

Beatus,  p.  441.     Desideria  mulierum  non  cognosced 
cf.  Dan  xi  37    Iv  €7ri$vtua  ywaiKos  ov  /XT)  irpovoyOrj. 

Beatus,  p.  441.     Et  nullum  Deum  patrum  suorum  cognosced 
cf.  Dan  xi  38   /cat  6tov  oV  OVK  eyvwo-av  ot  Trarepes  avrov  TtjaTJcret. 

Beatus,  p.  440.     Statuit  templum  suum  inter  maria  super  montem 
inclytum  et  sanctum. 

cf.   Dan   xi   45    KCU   <m;o-ei    avrov    rrjv    (TKrjvrjv    TOTC    ava    /xecrov    rwv 
Kat  rov  opovs  T^S  ^cXr/crea)?  TOV  ayi'ov. 


If  the  resemblance  between  these  curious  allusions  and  the 
LXX  text  is  but  small,  they  resemble  the  text  of  Theodotion  even 
less.  It  is  the  quotation  of  ii  43  cited  above  which  makes 
a  decisive  case  for  the  use  of  the  LXX  text  of  Daniel  by  S. 
Victorinus  ;  but  it  was  necessary  to  give  his  other  allusions  to  the 
book,  lest  it  should  be  thought  that  he  used  Theodotion  elsewhere. 


NOTE  II. 

The  text  of  Job  in  Latin  Fathers. 

1.  S.  Cyprian  quotes  in  all  only  sixteen  verses  from  the  book 
of  Job,  but  it  is  clear  from  Test  III  1  that  his  text  omitted  the  first- 
half  of  xxix  13,  which  is  one  of  the  arisen  derived  from  Theodotion. 
It  is  also  omitted  by  Lucifer  137,  though  there  Lucifer  omits 
other  verses  as  well.  This  quotation  alone  would  not  be  enough 
to  shew  that  Lucifer  used  the  shorter  text ;  that  he  did  so 
however  is  clear  from  his  long  citations  from  Job  xxi — xxvii  at  the 
end  of  De  regibus  apostaticis  (pp.  61  ff.).  The  Speculum  (m)  also 
omits  the  Theodotion  verses,  though  it  shews  here  and  there 
signs  of  corruption  from  the  Vulgate,  the  most  startling  being 
Job  xxxvi  13a  in  m  375.  The  Speculum  text  reappears  in  Pris- 
cillian,  Job  xl  3 — 9  being  quoted  by  him  (ed.  p.  12)  almost  word 
for  word  with  m  436.  The  version  used  by  Prisciliian  contained 
the  'ridiculous  name  Leusibora '  laughed  at  by  S.  Jerome  (e.g.  Ep 
75  and  contra  Vigilantium  §  7);  that  is  to  say,  Job  xxxviii  39a 
Ojjpevaeis  Se  \eovcn  ftop  a  ^.appears  as  ftu  capies  Leosiboram'  which 
was  supposed  to  refer  to  some  monster.  The  'Leosibora'  is  unknown 
to  the  Egyptian  versions,  to  Origen,  and  to  the  Greek  Uncials, 
which  have  the  v  efaXfcvo-nrcov  to  \eovai.  It  probably  therefore 
was  a  mistake  of  the  original  Latin  translator,  in  whose  copy  the 
v  must  have  been  absent.  In  fact  we  do  not  meet  with  this  Beast 
except  in  the  unrevised  Old  Latin ;  it  occurs  in  none  of  the 
Onomastica  published  by  Lagarde. 

2.  That  the  verses  derived  from  Theodotion  were  read  by 
S.  Ambrose  and  S.  Augustine  is  clear  from  Sabatier's  notes  to 
Job  xxi  23,  xxiv  8a,  xxvi  5—11, 14ab.  All  these  verses  are  omitted 


TEXT  OF  JOB  IN  LATIN  FATHERS.  33 

by  the  Thebaic  and  put  under  asterisks  in  the  Hexaplar  authorities 
(including  S.  Jerome's  Latin  version),  but  they  are  quoted  by 
Ambrose  and  Augustine  without  suspicion. 

3.  S.  Augustine's  quotations  generally  agree  verbally  with 
S.  Jerome.  Those  of  S.  Ambrose  do  not  so  agree.  More  definite 
proofs  however  are  not  wanting  of  the  absolute  independence  of 
the  latter. 

Job  v  23  a  on  //.era  TWV  \idcov  TOV  dypov  tf  SiadrjKfj  aov 
LXX  A. 

These  words  are  absent  from  the  Thebaic  and  are  under 
asterisks  in  all  forms  of  the  Hexapla.  But  for  some  reason  they 
were  not  inserted  like  the  other  missing  CTTL^OL  in  the  common 
text,  and  so  are  absent  from  NB  etc.  (C  is  defective).  It  is  there 
fore  most  important  to  notice  that  they  are  also  omitted  by 
Ambrose. 


Job  xxi  15  HB>  rtB]  ri  licavbs  KABC. 

This  occurs  in  a  passage  under  asterisk  in  the  Hexapla.  Here 
Ambrose  2/2  has  quid  prodest,  but  Jerome  *quid  est  Dominus*. 
'I/cavo?,  as  is  well  known,  is  the  standing  Greek  rendering  of 
'Shaddai'. 

Job  xix  12.  This  passage  exhibits  in  the  clearest  form  the 
close  connection  of  Augustine  and  Jerome,  together  with 
Ambrose's  independence  of  them,  while  shewing  at  the  same 
time  that  both  have  the  interpolated  verses. 

Heb.     ^PlttS  MD  Wl  am  *hy  ^W  nm  IKS'  TIT 
LXX    6fj,o@vfjiaSoi>    Se    rjKdov    rd    Treiparijpia    avrov    eyr'    efjiol 

T<xt9  oSot?  IJLOV'  efcvfcXtoaav  ev/cdOtfroi. 

The  division  is  that  of  K  Theb.     The  translation  is  arrived  at 

by  omitting  17D1  and  reading  ^*]i<  for  the  last  word  (cf.  xxxi  9). 

Ambrose  :  —  simul  mihi  uenerunt  temptationes  grauissimae 
circumdederunt  me  insidiantes. 

Jerome  (following  the  Hexapla):  — 

simul  uenerunt  temptationes  eius 
*et  fecerunt  per  me  uiam  suam 
*et  circumdederunt  tabernaculum  suum. 
B.  3 


34  THE    OLD   LATIN. 

The  last  of  these  clauses  is  quoted  word  for  word  by  Augustine. 

It  is  unfortunate  that  we  have  no  decisive  evidence  as  to  the 
genuine  O.  L.  rendering  of  Treiparripta.  In  M.  Berger's  extracts 
from  the  margin  of  the  Codex  Gothicus  Legionensis  (Notices  et 
Extraits,  xxxiv,  2me  partie,  p.  21)  pyratheria  occurs  in  Job  x  17, 
but  it  is  not  absolutely  clear  that  the  whole  of  this  interesting 
margin  was  not  taken  directly  from  a  Greek  MS1.  The  Thebaic 
takes  the  word  in  the  sense  of 'pirates'  nests'. 

4.  I  have  not  noticed  any  followers  of  S.  Ambrose,  but  the 
later  Africans  are  all  like  S.  Augustine  dependent  on  S.  Jerome's 
version  from  the  Hexapla.  It  will  be  enough  here  to  refer  to  the 
crucial  passages  in  Sabatier.  For  Vigilius  of  Tapsus  they  are 
Job  xxvi  13  (astra  Vig,  corrupted  from  claustra  Hier-Aug);  xxviii 
21;  xxxvii  12d  ([in]  gubernaculis  Vig-Hier-Aug  =  eV  6e€/3ov\a6coO 
Theod);  xl  10 — 14.  For  Fulgentius  we  may  refer  to  Job  xiv  16, 
xxx  3  and  xxxvi  10b,  11,  and  for  Chromatius  of  Aquileia  to  xxxi 
7— 12a,  34b— 39a.  The  Opus  Imperfectum  in  Mattheum  also  had 
the  interpolated  arisen,  as  may  be  seen  from  Job  xxxi  1  and 
xl  10. 

1  Sec  pp.  9  and  10  of  this  Essay. 


NOTE   III. 

On  cod.  Colbertinus  (c). 

The  African  character  of  the  text  of  c  at  the  end  of  S.  Luke 
is  best  exhibited  by  the  comparison  of  a  few  verses  with  the 
various  European  documents.  The  passage  given  below,  Lc  xxiv 
36 — end,  was  chosen  as  covering  a  quotation  from  Cypr.  Test  I  4 
(Hartel,  p.  43).  In  the  left-hand  column  is  given  the  text  of  c 
with  the  variants  of  e,  and  Cyprian  where  extant ;  in  the  right- 
hand  column  is  the  text  of  the  Vulgate  from  Wordsworth  and 
White,  with  the  variants  of  the  chief  European  MSS  a  b  d  ff  and  /. 
Italics  in  the  left-hand  column  indicate  where  the  '  African '  au 
thorities  c  e  Cyprian  differ  among  themselves ;  in  the  right-hand 
column  italics  denote  where  more  than  one  of  the  O.  L.  authorities 
desert  the  Vulgate  text.  We  may  thus  assume  with  comparative 
certainty  that  the  non-italic  portions  of  each  column  give  an  African 
and  a  European  text  respectively.  For  clearness,  the  points  where 
the  Africans  agree  against  all  other  authorities  are  printed  in  bold 
face  type.  No  account  is  here  taken  of  the  orthography  of  c, 
which  is  in  the  main  that  of  an  ordinary  MS  of  the  12th  cent.1 

1  Belsheim  in  the  preface  to  his  transcript  of  c  gives  as   a   specimen   from 
Me  xii  32 :  Un'-f-W  ds  &  n  e  ali'  pi  eu. 


3—2 


THE  OLD  LATIN. 


Lc  xxiv  36 — end 


(with  variants  of  e  Cypr  43,  bold-face 
type  shewing  agreement  of  the  Africans 
against  the  rest.  The  brackets  shew 
what  I  regard  as  comparatively  late 
interpolations  in  the  African  base 
of  c) 

^haec  cum  illi  loquerentur 
ipse     dominus     stetit    in     medio 

ipsorum 
\et  dixit  illis  pax  uobiscum 

ego  sum  nolite  timere] 
37turbati    autem    et    in     timore 

missi 

putiiuerunt  se  spiritum  uidere 
:isille  autem  dixit  illis  quid  tur- 

bati  estis 

et  quare  cogitationes  ascendant 
in  cor  uestrum  1 


Vulgate 


(with  variants  of  a  b  d  ff  /) 


36  Dum  haec  autem  \oc\\iuntur 
iesus  stetit  in  medio  eorum 

et  dicit  eis  pax  uobis 

ego  sum  nolite  timere 
37conturbati  uero  et  conterriti 


se  spiritum  uidere 
38  et  dixit  eis  quid  turbati  estis 

et  A  cogitationes  ascendunt 
in  corda  uestm  1 


36  dominus]  om.  e         ipsorum]  eorum 
e  <>t  dixit... timere]  om.  e 


37  timorem  e 


38  et]  om.  e 


[Agreements  of  single  'European'  MBS 
with  the  '  African  '  text  given  in  small 
capitals] 

36  dum  haec  autem  loq.]  +  iLLi  b  •  et 
dum  h.  loq.  a  ;  haec  autem  eorum  lo- 
quentium  d ;   h.  au.  illis  loquentibus  / 
iesus]  ipse  a  1)  dff;  ipse  iesus  /  et 
dicit. . .timere]  om.  a  b  d  ff        dixit  /  vg. 
codd 

37  cent,    uero]    exterriti    autem    a; 
conturbatique    b  ff  ipsi    autem 
pauerunt  d            et  TIMORE  adprehensi 
a;   et   TIMORE   tacti   d  putabant 
se  a ;  putabant  d             spiritum]  fan- 
tasma  d 

38  qui  dixit  ILLIS  a  •  dixit  autem  ad 
ILLOS  6  / ;  ad  ille  dixit  ILLIS  d         quare 
conturbati  d  et  2°]  +  quare  a  b  /f ; 
+  ut  quid  in  d  (sic)  ascenderuntjT 
corde  uestro  a   b   ff;    COR   uestRUM   d ; 
cordibus  uestris  / 


COD.   COLBERTINUS. 


37 


39  uidete  manus  meas  et  pedes 

quoniam  ego  ipse  sum 
palpate    et    uidete    me    quoniam 
spiritus 

carnem  et  ossa  non  habet 
sicut  me  uidetis  liabeiitein 

40  [et  cum  hoc  dixisset 

ostendit  eis  manus  et  pedes] 

41  cum    adhuc  autem  non   crede- 

rent 

et  mirabantur  a  gaudio 
dixit  ad  eos  iesus 
habetis  hie  aliquid    quod  mandu- 

cetur  1 
42[at    illi    obtulerunt    ei]    partem 

piscis  assi 

et  porrexerunt  ei  et  [fauum  mellis] 
43accepit  coram  illis 
[sumens  reliquias  dedit  eis] 

39  me]  om.  e  quoniam  2°]  quia  e 


40]  om.  e 

41  crederent]  +  illi  e  et  cum  ad- 

mirarentur  e  iesus]  om.  e  quod 
mand.  ]  manducare  e 


42  at  illi  obt.  ei]  om.  e 
illi  piscis  assi  partem  e 
mellis]  om.  e 


43  sumens... eis]  om.  e 


et  porr. 
fauum 


3U  uidete  manus  meas  et  pedes  y\ 

quia  ipse  ego  sum 
palpate  et  uidete  quia  spiritus 

carnem  et  ossa  non  habet 
sicut  me  uidetis  habere 
40  et  cum  hoc  dixisset 

ostendit  eis  manus  et  pedes. 
"Adhuc  autem  illis  non  credeuti- 
busA 

et  mirantibus  prae  gaudio 

dixit 
habetis    liic  aliquid    quod  mandu- 

cetuT  1 
42 at  illi  optulerunt  ei  partem 

piscis  assi 

et  fauum  mellis 
43 et  cum  m&uducasset  coram  eis 

sumens  reliquias  dedit  eis. 

39  uidete]  +  eccebff  pedes] +  meos 
a  b  d  ff  QUONIAM  a  ego  sum 

ipse  (a)  6  ff  f  (ipsi  a) ;  EGO  IPSE  sum  d 
palpate]  tractate  a  QUONIAM  a  d 

ossum  a  ossa  n.  h.  nee  carnes  d 

sicut]  +  et  d  habeNTEM  a  d 

40]  om.  a  b  d  ff 

41  non  cred.  illis  a  (d)  ff  (eis  d)         et 
mirant.]  post  gaudio  df         mirantibus] 
stupentibus   a ;    mirantium   d  A 
gaudio  d            dixit]  +  eis  /           aliquid 
quod  edamus    hie    a;    aliquid    hie    q. 
mand.   b ;    aliq.  manducare  hie  d ;   hie 
aliq.  manducare  ff 

42  at  illi]  qui  a ;  ET  d  opt.  (uel 
obt.)]  PORRExerunt  a  d            ei]  ILLI  a  d 
piscis   assi  partem  a  d            assam   b 
et  f.  mellis]  om.  d ;   om.  mellis  a  b  (et  de 
fabo  b) 

43  cum... eis]  Accipiens  manducauit 
coram  ILLIS  a  (d)  (f)  (accipiens  in  con- 
spectu  eorum  manducauit  d;  accipiens 
coram  ipsis  manducauit/) ;  manducans 
coram  ipsis  bff          sumens... eis]  om. 
abdff 


38 


THE   OLD   LATIN. 


44  et  dixit  ad  eos 

isti   sermones    sunt    quos   locutus 
sum  ad  uos 

cum  adhuc  essem  uobiscum 
quia  oportet  impleri 

omnia  quae  scripta  sunt 
in  lege  moysi  et  in  prophetis 

et  in  psalmis  de  me 

45  tune  a/>eruit  illis  sensum 

ut  intellegerent  scripturas 
4tiet  dixit  illis 
quia  scriptum  est 

christuin  pati 
et  resurgere  a  mortuis 

tertia  die 
47  et  praedicari  in  nomine  eius 

paenitentiam 
et  rernissa  peccatorum 

usque  in  onmes  gentes 
incipiens  ab  Lierusalem 
48 et  uos  estis  testes  eoruin 


44  Et  dixit  ad  eos 

haec  sunt  uerba  quae  locutus  sum 
ad  uos 

cum  adhuc  essem  uobiscum 
quoniam  necesse  est  impleri 

omnia  quae  scripta  sunt 
in  lege  mosi  et  prophetis 

et  psalmis  de  me 
45tunc  aperuit  illis  sensum 

ut  intellegerent  scripturas 

46  et  dixit  eis 

quoniam  sic  scriptum  est 
et  sic  oportebat  christum  pati 
et  resurgere  a  mortuis 
die  tertia  • 

47  et  praedicari  in  nomine  eius 

paenitentiam 
et  remissionem  peccatorum 

in  omnes  gentes 
incipientibus  ab  hiurosolyma 

48  uos  autem  estis  testes  horum 


•44   ad   cos]   illis  c  istij   §  Cypr 

simt  sermones  Cypr ;  om.  sunt  e  quia] 
quoniam  c  adimpleri  e  Cypr  quae 
scr.  sunt]  scripta  Cypr  in  2°  et  3°] 

om.  e  Cypr. 


45  adaperuit  Gypr 


46 


47  praedicare  c 


gentes]  M  Cypr 


44  et]  om.  bff          eis  a  d  haec] 
isti  d           sunt]  om.  a  d           SERMONES 
rnei  QUOS  d             ad  uos]  aput  uos  a ; 
om.  vg.  codd           adhuc]  om.  d  ne 
cesse    est]    OPOKTET    a   d;    oportuit  / 
suppleri  6            moysi  a  bjff  vg.  codd  ; 
moysei  d 

45  adaperti    sunt    eorum    sensus   d 
illis  sensum]  sensum  illorum  a  ad 
intellegendum     a ;      ut     intellegant    d 
scripturas]  ea  quae  scripta  sunt  b  ff 

46  QUIA  sic  scr.  d        et  sic  oportebat] 
et  sic  oportuit  /;  om.  ab  dff  die 
tertia]  TERTIA  DIE  a ;  om.  bff 

47  illius  a  predicare  ff  re- 
missA  b               in  omn.  gentibus  a;  in 
omni  gente  bff;  super  omnES  gentss  d 
incipientibus]  incipiENS  a ;  incipientium 
d            hierusALEM  a  df 

48  ET  uos  autem  d  (om.  estis)         testes 
estis  ff  horum]  +  omnium  / 


COD.    COLBERTINUS. 


39 


49 et  ego  mitto  promissionem 

patris  mei  super  uos 
uos  autem  sedete  in  ciuitate 
quoad  usque  induatis 

uirtutem  ex  alto. 
50Produxit  autem  illos  foris 

in  bethania 
et  eleuauit  manus  suas 

et  benedixit  illos 
51  et  factum  est  cum  benedixisset 
illos 

discessit  ab  eis 
\etferebatur  in  caelum] 
52 et  [ipsi  adorantes]  reuersi  sunt  in 

hierusalem  cum  gaudio  raagno 
53etfuerunt  semper  in  templo 
laudantes  [et  benedicentes]  deum 

[amen]. 


49et  ego  mitto  promissum 

patris  mei  in  uos 
uos  autem  sedete  in  ciuitafe 
quoad  usque  induamini 

uirtutem  ex  alto. 
50Eduxit  autem  eos /bras 

in  bethania  m 
et  eleuatis  manibus  suis 

benedixit  eis 

51  et   factum    est   dum    benedicere^ 

illis 

recessit  ab  eis 
etferebatur  in  caelum 

52  et  ipsi  adorantes  regressi  sunt  in 

hierusalem  cum  gaudio  magrio 

53  et  erant  semper  in  templo 
laudantes  et  benedicentes  deum 

amen. 


49   patris  mei]  meam  e  uos  2°] 

illud  e  (sic) 


50  illis  e  foris]  om.  e  in] 

quasi  e  bethaniam  e  lebabit  e 


51  -xissit  e  ab  illis  e  et  fer. 

in  cael.]  om.  e 


52    ipsi  adorantes]  om.   e  in] 

om.  e 

53  erant  c  in  templo  semper  e 

et  benedicentes]  om.  e  amen]  om.  e 


49  et]  +  ecce  /  mittam   a   vg. 
codd            prom.  pat.  mei]  repromissi- 
onem  patris    a ;    promissa  patris  mei 
b  ff\   promissioNEM  MEAM  d          in  1°] 
SUPER  a  d            ciuitate]  ciuitatem  a  ff ; 
+  hac  hierusalem  /  quoad  usque] 
donee  a ;  usque  dum  d  ex  alto]  a 
summo  a  ;  ab  alto  b  ff ',  de  alto  d 

50  ILLOS  a ;  eum  ff  foris  b  ff ; 
om.    a                in]   usque   ad   a ;    ad   d 
bethania/           et  extollens  manus  SUAS 
a ;    lebans  autem  manus  d  suis] 
om.  ff            eis]  eos  a  b  dfff 

51  dum]   CUM   d  benedicit   b  ff 
ILLOS  abff',  eos  df  Discessit  a  d 
et  fer.  in  cael.]  om.  a  b  dff         ferebatur] 
eleuabatur  / 

52  adorantes]  om.  a  b  d  ff\   +eum/ 
reuERSi  a  d 

53  conlaudantes  a        et  benedicentes] 
om.  ab  dff         deum]  om.  b          amen] 
om.  abdffvg.  codd 


The  words  bracketed  in  vv.  36,  40,  42,  43  and   51—53  are 
instances  of  what  I  venture  to  consider  interpolations  in  c  from  the 


40  THE   OLD   LATIN. 

Vulgate.  It  will  be  noticed  that  apart  from  these  bracketed 
passages  the  text  of  c  is  quite  of  a  different  type  from  that  of  the 
Vulgate.  It  will  also  be  noticed  that  the  'African '  text  of  c  6  Cypr 
is  not  unfrequently  supported  by  single  MSS  of  the  '  European ' 
type ;  this  is  especially  the  case  with  a  and  d.  But  there  remain 
eighteen  readings  in  the  thirteen  verses  where  c  e  (with  Cyprian 
where  extant)  are  agreed  against  all  the  other  Latin  texts.  These 
are  the  readings  printed  in  the  left-hand  column  in  bold-face  type, 
and  they  are  sufficient  both  in  number  and  character  to  prove  that 
in  this  passage  c  has  a  fundamentally  '  African '  text.  The  reading 
quid  scriptum  est  in  ver.  46  is  especially  noteworthy,  in  the  first 
place  because  c  e  and  Cyprian  join  in  omitting  sic  against  every 
known  authority,  both  Greek  and  Latin,  and  again  because  they 
join  (with  d)  in  reading  quia  for  quoniam,  although  the  *  African ' 
text  often  has  quoniam  where  the  others  have  quia. 

The  text  of  c  contains  a  valuable  '  African '  element  elsewhere 
than  in  the  later  chapters  of  S.  Luke.  Examples  may  be  found 
for  instance  in  Me  xii  22,  40.  In  many  parts  of  the  Gospels  on 
the  other  hand  c  sides  rather  with  the  ordinary  '  European '  Old 
Latin  than  with  k  or  e.  But  in  any  case  African  texts  are  so 
uncommon,  that  the  smallest  fragment  is  of  great  value  to  the 
textual  critic ;  and  my  object  in  writing  this  Note  is  not  so  much 
to  investigate  the  composition  of  c,  as  to  draw  attention  to  the 
fact  that  there  is  in  it  a  genuine  African  strain  of  good  quality 
and  of  considerable  extent. 


NOTE  IV. 

Tabulated  Renderings. 

[In  the  following  tables  the  chief  0.  Lat.  MSS  are  quoted  wherever  available, 
so  that  silence  may  be  taken  to  mean  that  a  MS  is  not  extant  at  that  point.] 


1 

§ 

i-H           r^ 

~» 

«  'a 

S   "-1 

"^ 

£           s 

p  $ 

«  z 

1       j 

'&a 

0     3 

11^ 

3-              "^ 

-2  a 

-S        S 

w 

O>      <D 

§  -s 

03 
0      ffl 

'QJ 

fl      P 

r 

s-*^^~^ 

& 

__M 

IN 

% 

£L 

a 

^ 

S 

.2 

OD       60 

i 

t>         > 

^      ^ 

1 

^      £ 

K 

<u 

<0 

'e 

rO           ^S 

« 

g 

—  s 

o          "* 

iln 

,0 

£.           S 

Oi 

S     i? 

S 

^ 

S 
^ 

t>D    60    &D    60    t 

JO    60 

60 

60 
t>. 

.g  tS    T3    TS       Tg 

rie  ^e  *    *    *      v 


H  i         I 


42 


THE   OLD   LATIN. 


The  bracketed  authorities  in  Joh  xiv  11  add  uel  to  the  render 
ing  under  which  they  are  quoted. 

What  is  especially  noteworthy  in  the  above  table  is  the  way  in 
which  the  African  text  is  entirely  unaffected  by  the  great  shifting 
of  the  European  attestation  in  Lc  x  6  and  xiii  9  from  alioquin  to 
sin  autem.  No  more  decisive  proof  of  the  essential  unity  of  the 
European  texts  could  be  given.  A  similar  case  will  be  found  in 
Mt  xxiv  21  under  6  KO<T/JLO<;. 


2.     7rapa/3o\tj                       similitudo 

parabola 

Mt  xiii  3—36            *»/n 

C9/  a6d<£c 

(eleven  times) 

53             ke 

afcd  „ 

xv  15                e              corb 

ad,, 

xxi  33 

e      abd  ,, 

45 

c      abd  „ 

xxii     1 

e     abd   ,, 

xxiv  32                e             Any1/*, 

abd   „ 

Me       iii  23 

e      abd  „ 

iv     2                       b 

e      ad,, 

10                      l 

ad,, 

11                               Sina  et  Sion  §  1 

abd  „ 

13                       b 

ad,, 

13                        b 

ad,, 

30                       6 

e         d  „ 

33 

e        Id  „ 

34                              (ow.  t') 

bd  „ 

vii  17                 an 

j  j 

xii     1             ft 

bd  „ 

12             k 

abd  „ 

xiii  28             A;    a 

d  „ 

N.B.     In  an  interpolation  prefixed  to  Mt  xiii  44  b  has  •  similitude '. 

Before  proceeding  to  the  evidence  from  S.  Luke  we  may  notice 
that  similitude  seems  thoroughly  African.  It  is  found  in  k  where- 
ever  extant,  and  though  e  here  often  joins  the  European  array,  the 
African  character  of  the  word  is  vindicated  by  its  occurrence  in  the 
tract  De  montibus  Sina  et  Sion.  On  the  other  hand  parabola  is 
always  found  in/vg,  though  here  and  there  the  best  European  MSS 
have  singly  similitude. 


TABULATED   RENDERINGS. 


Lc 


iv  23 

similitude 
e     bcffrqfvg 

paraooia 
a  d 

v  36 

c     bff   q    vgAmb 

a  dc      r  f 

vi  39 

e     bffrqfvgAug 

a  dc 

viii    4 

c     bffrqfvg 

a  dc 

9 

c            r 

abdcff    qfvg 

10 

e 

abdcff  rqf  vg 

11 

e            r        (Tert) 

abdcff   qfvg 

xii  16 

cm  bffirqfvg 

a  dc                 (Tert) 

41 

e     bffiq 

dc     r  /vg 

xiii    6 

e     bcffirqfvg 

a  d 

xiv     7 

e              q             (om.  b) 

a  dcffir  /vg 

xv     3 

e     bcffi  q 

a  d          /vg 

xviii     1 

e 

abdcffirqfvg  Tert 

9 

e     bcffirq       Opt  Aii(j 

a             /vg       (om.  d) 

xix  11 

c   sbcffirq 

ad         /vg 

xx     9 

e 

a  dcffirqf\g 

19 

e       cff  rq  vg 

a  d     i    f 

xxi  29 

e      cffir  /vg 

ad        q 

N.B.     Trapoi/j,ia=proiierbium  (Job  x  6;  xvi  25  bis,  29),  but  similitude  occurs  in 
Job  xvi  25  bis  a  Aug ;  29  e  a. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  balance  of  evidence  is  here  much  dis 
turbed,  many  European  documents  supporting  similitudo  against 
parabola.  What  is  of  great  importance  to  note  is  that  when  b  has 
'similitudo'  (which  the  analogy  of  the  other  Gospels  would  lead  us 
to  suppose  was  the  original  rendering),  some  but  not  all  the  MSS 
retain  the  word  also.  On  the  other  hand,  when  b  has  the  non- 
African  word  'parabola'  it  carries  with  it  all  the  European  MSS.  The 
only  exception  is  the  reading  of  r  in  Lc  viii  9,  11,  which  may  be 
due  to  mechanical  assimilation  to  viii  4.  So  far  therefore  as  the 
criticism  of  this  single  word  takes  us,  b  seems  to  represent  an 
eclectic  stage  of  the  European  text  which  was  the  ultimate 
foundation  of  the  later  revisions  such  as  ff,  /,  and  so  of  the 
Vulgate. 

3.  [6]  Koo-fjios.  This  word  occurs  95  times  in  the  four 
Gospels.  The  chief  facts  about  the  three  Latin  renderings  mun- 
dus,  orbis  [terrae]}  and  saeculum,  are  given  below. 

(i)  Mundus  is  by  far  the  most  common  except  in  the  African 
text  of  S.  John,  and  is  found  there  also  when  any  interpretation  but 
the  physical  world  is  excluded,  e.g.  in  the  last  verse  of  the  Gospel. 


44  THE   OLD   LATIN. 

(ii)  Orbis  (or  orbis  terrae,  or  o.  terrarum)  is  the  regular  Latin 
equivalent  of  77  oi/cov/j,evr]1.  As  a  rendering  of  #007x09  it  occurs  as 
follows: 

in  Mt  :  —  iv  8  Ifil  (o.  terrarum,  from  Lc  iv  5);  xvi  26  de  laud,  mart,  ; 

xxvi  13  h  and  Wordsworth's  British  MSS  QR. 
in  Lc  :  —  ix  25  scss  [but  *  mundus'  Cypr.  Test  in  61  codtl.  opt] 
in  Joh  :  —  never 

but  in  Me  :  —  viii  36  c  d  ['  mundus  '  k  b  rell.  •  '  saeculum  '  a  n] 
xiv  9  c  (k)  ['  orbis  terrae  '  k  ;  '  mundus  '  a  rell.] 
xvi  15  c  o  q  Amb  ['  mundus  '  ff  vg] 

In  xvi  15  the  attestation  includes  most  of  the  extant  O.  L. 
evidence  ;  o  is  the  supplementary  last  leaf  of  n.  The  evidence  of 
sess  in  Lc  ix  25  suggests  that  orbis  is  sometimes  a  late  African 
substitution  for  mundus.  In  the  addition  to  k  Me  xvi  4>  orbis 
terrae  probably  stands  for  77  oiKov^evrj  not  o  /tocryito?2. 

(iii)  Saeculum  is  the  regular  equivalent  for  aiwv  in  all  Latin 
texts3,  but  as  a  rendering  of  KOO-/JLOS  it  is  never  found  in  the 
African  text  of  Mt  Me  and  Lc.  Even  in  Mt  xxiv  21  e  and 
Cyprian  have  mundus,  though  all  the  good  European  MSS  have 
saeculum. 

In  European  texts  of  Mt  Me  Lc  saeculum  (  =  KO  07*09)  occurs 

Mt  xiii  38  d  Iren 
Me  viii  36  a  n 
Lc  xii  30  a 

and  for  air  dp^r)?  tcoo-fAov  Mt  xxiv  21  we  find 

ab  initio  saeculi  inabdhc/rq  corb  Wordsworth's  ER 
and  Iren. 

This  affords  by  the  way  a  striking  instance  of  the  '  European  ' 
character  of  Iren.lat.  The  allied  phrase  aTro  Karafto\ij^  KOO-/JLOV 


1  In  the  four  passages  from  the  Gospels  where  ij  olnov^vrj  occurs  the  only 
exceptions  I  know  are  that  in  Mt  xxiv  14  d  and  Wordsworth's  E  have  mundus,  and 
that  in  Lc  iv  5  D»r  has  TOU  Koa^ov  for  T?}y  oiKov/udvrjs  followed  by  d  and  by/. 

2  Cf.  Anaph.  Pihiti  (Tisch,  ed.  2,  p.  446). 

3  A  partial  exception  is  formed  by  phrases  meaning  'for  ever'  (ei's  TOV  aluva, 
etc.),  where  in  aeternum  and  in  aeuum  occur.     In  perpetuum  is  also  occasionally 
found. 


TABULATED   RENDERINGS. 


45 


(Mt  xiii  38)  is  also  rendered  ab  initio  saeculi  in  d  h,  but  a  constitu 
tions  mundi  in  a  b  c  ff  q  f  vg  Hil  and  ab  origine  in  k  e,  the  two 
African  MSS  omitting  Koo-fjLov  with  the  true  Greek  text. 

On  the  other  hand  saeculum  is  the  characteristic  African 
rendering  for  *;oo>io?  in  S.  John,  the  European  documents  having 
generally  hie  mundus,  corrected  in  the  Vulgate  to  mundus  alone. 

In  documents  not  predominantly  African  saeculum  occurs 

Job  iv  42  q  [=  e] 

vi  14  d  [e  om.  ver] 

33  q  [=  e  ;  q  has  hoc  saec.] 

51  q  [=e  Cypr  Aug  ;  against  Tert] 

ix    5  d  [=e] 

xii  46  Aug  [against  e] 

xiv30  HW/t  [=e] 

xv  18,  19  (sexies)       r  [=e  Cypr*!*;  against  Cyprl/3] 

xvi  28  r  [=e] 

33d  rZft/  [=eCypr~/3;  against  Cy/pr1  /,,] 

xvii    6  r//^  [=e] 

9  r  [=  e] 

xviii  36    6w)  Hil  [=  e  Gypr] 


i.e.  instances  are  only  found  in  14  verses  out  of  58  in  which  #0 
occurs. 

With  regard  to  the  variation  of  rendering  in  e  it  may  be  re 
marked  that  in  addition  to  Joh  xvii  5,  24,  and  xxi  25,  where  6 
/coo-pas  means  the  whole  creation  and  consequently  mundus  is  alone 
appropriate,  mundus  not  saeculum  is  found  in  e  from  Joh  i  1  —  iii 
I7a  (seven  times),  x  36—  xii  46  (eight  times),  xvi  11,  and  xvii  25. 
In  the  last  of  these  passages  it  is  probably  the  result  of  mechanical 
assimilation  to  the  preceding  verse.  But  though  the  change  from 
saeculum  to  mundus  in  x  36—  xii  46  is  decisively  not  confirmed  by 
S.  Cyprian's  quotations,  the  use  of  mundus  in  chap,  i  is  confirmed, 
as  in  all  five  places  S.  Cyprian  also  has  mundus  not  saeculum.  It 
is  possible  therefore  that  the  original  African  translator  started  the 
Gospel  with  mundus,  but  changed  the  rendering  later  on  to  saecu 
lum,  from  a  sense  perhaps  of  the  close  relation  in  which  the  Johan- 
nine  /coo-fios  stands  to  the  alvv  of  the  Synoptists. 


NOTE  V. 

On  the  '  Western    Interpolations  in  the  Gospels. 

The  main  object  of  this  Note  is  to  bring  together  those  addi 
tions  to  the  Gospels,  which  from  the  novelty  of  their  contents 
might  be  held  to  indicate  the  use  of  independent  sources  for  the 
enrichment  of  the  narrative  by  '  Western'  scribes.  The  passages 
are  assumed  to  be  no  part  of  the  original  text  on  the  authority  of 
B  and  its  allies,  which  with  a  few  exceptions  omit  them  all.  By 
exhibiting  the  early  attestation  of  these  Interpolations  in  a 
tabular  form  we  gain  some  idea  of  how  for  they  are  supported  as 
a  body  by  the  'African'  or  the  'European'  groups  of  the  Old 
Latin,  or  again  by  the  Old  Syriac;  we  may  even  by  this  means 
gain  some  idea  of  their  local  origin. 

No  account  is  here  taken  of  mere  harmonistic  additions,  nor 
of  variations  which  can  plausibly  be  assigned  to  palaeographical 
error.  The  passages  chosen  have  been  divided  into  two  classes. 
Those  in  Table  A  are  the  longer  Interpolations,  each  containing  a 
sentence  complete  in  itself;  some  indeed  are  complete  narratives. 
They  have  been  arranged  in  what  has  seemed  to  the  present  writer 
their  degree  of  independence  of  the  true  text.  They  begin  with 
the  wholly  new  narrative  of  the  Woman  taken  in  Adultery,  a 
narrative  not  even  suggested  by  the  context  in  which  it  now 
occurs ;  and  they  end  with  adaptations  of  words  found  elsewhere 
in  the  Gospels  (Nos.  13—16),  which  are  distinguished  from  the 
class  of  harmonistic  additions  by  the  peculiar  context  in  which 
they  are  introduced,  whereby  a  new  turn  is  given  to  the  words. 
The  passages  given  in  Table  B  are  mere  expansions  of  the  Evan 
gelical  text ;  they  are  mostly  very  short,  and  rarely  contain  a  verb 
except  in  a  dependent  clause. 


THE   WESTERN   INTERPOLATIONS. 


The  very  general  absence  of  these  Interpolations  from  the 
Sinai  Palimpsest  (syr.  sin)  might  seem  to  suggest  that  an  ancestor 
of  that  MS  had  been  corrected  to  the  KB  text  by  excision.  I  have 
therefore  added  in  a  separate  Table  the  Interpolations  of  the  same 
internal  character  as  those  in  Tables  A  and  B  which  are  found  in 
syr.  sin  or  syr.  crt,  but  not  in  the  earlier  forms  of  the  Latin.  Had 
the  ancestors  of  syr.  sin  really  suffered  mutilation,  these  passages 
would  have  been  cut  out  with  the  others.  The  fact  that  these 
interpolations  are  found  in  syr.  sin  makes  it  less  probable  that 
its  ancestors  ever  contained  the  passages  collected  in  Table  A. 

In  the  following  Tables  the  critical  symbol  for  a  MS  indicates  that 
the  MS  in  question  contains  such  and  such  a  reading;  <om.'  indicates 
that  it  omits  the  reading;  * — '  indicates  that  it  is  not  extant  at  the  point. 
Where  a  is  missing  I  have  given  the  reading  of  the  kindred  MS  n. 

A.     The  Greater  Interpolations  and  their   Western  Attestation. 


lat.  afr 

lat.  our                  syr.  vt 

'Re- 

Manuscripts  quoted 

I) 

k      C'ypr     «' 

a  (or  n)          b 

crt            sin 

Tex't' 

1.     Johvii53-viii  11  (The  Wo 

man  taken  in  Adultery) 

L) 

e 

om.          b* 

om.     om. 

r 

2.     Lc  vi  5  (The  Man  working 

on  the  Sabbath) 

D 

om. 

om.         om. 



om. 

3.     Mt  iii  15  fin.  (The  Light 

at  the  Baptism) 

om. 



a          om. 

om.     om. 

om. 

4.     Me  xvi  3  (The  Light  at 

the  Eesurrection) 

om. 

k 

—  [om.  ?i]  — 

om. 

om. 

5.     Lc  xxii  43,  44  (The  Bloody 

Sweat) 

D 

e 

a            b 

crt       om. 

s- 

6.     Lc    xxiii    34a    ("Father, 

forgive  them  ") 

om. 

c 

om.         om. 

crt       om. 

£• 

7.    Joh  v  4  (The  Angel  at  the 

Pool) 

om. 

e 

a             b 

om. 

£- 

8.     Mt  xvi  2b,  3  ("The  Face 

of  the  Sky  ") 

D 

e 

a             b 

om.     ora. 

s- 

9.     Mt  xx  28  fin.  ("  Seek  from 

little  to  increase  ") 

D 

e 

a             b 

crt     [om.] 

om. 

10.     Lc  ix  55  («  Ye  know  not 

what  spirit  ye  are  of... 

...but  to  save  them") 

P) 

—  Cypr   e 

a             b 

crt      om. 

r 

11.     Me  xii  22,  23  ("  To  whom 

is  the  woman  clean") 

om. 

k 

om.         om. 

—      om. 

om. 

48 


THE  OLD   LATIN. 


lat.  afr 

lat.  cur 

syr.  vt 

'Re- 

Manuscripts  quoted 

D 

k    Cypr    e 

"T          jT" 

crt          sin 

Text  ' 

12.     Lc  xxiii  2,  5 

("Loosing  the  Law...")   ) 
("our  sons  and  wives.  .  .  ")( 

om. 

e 

om.          (b) 

om.     om. 

om. 

13.     Lc    xxiii    53    (The   great 

Stone) 

D 

om. 

om.         om. 

om.    om. 

om. 

14.    Mt  xviii  11  ("  To  save  the 

lost") 

D 

—        om. 

a            b 

crt      om. 

s- 

15  1.  Mt  xx   16b   ("Many   are 

called  ") 

D 

e 

a            b 

crt        sin 

5- 

16.     Me  xiii  2  fin.  ("Another 

made  without  hands") 

D 

k   Cypr  e 

a             b 

om. 

om. 

17.     Joh  iii  6  ("  For  God  is  a 

Spirit  ") 

— 

e 

a          om. 

crt        sin 

om. 

(?om.Cypr) 

18.     Joh  vi  56  ("  The  Body  of 

the  Son  of  Man  as  the 

Bread  of  Life  ") 

D 

om. 

a          om. 

om.     om. 

om. 

The  merest  glance  at  the  above  Table  is  enough  to  shew  that 
the  important  additions  to  the  Gospel  narrative  here  collected 
together  are  thoroughly  characteristic  of  the  African  text.  Of 
the  18  passages  only  four  are  rejected  by  any  extant  African 
authority2,  and  of  these  four  it  is  quite  doubtful  whether  No.  14 
should  not  have  been  excluded  from  this  list  as  a  harmonistic 
addition,  while  No.  18  may  be  regarded  as  a  mere  adaptation  from 
the  context.  The  only  one  of  the  more  important  Interpolations 
actually  omitted  in  the  extant  fragments  of  e  or  k  is  the  famous 
story  of  the  Man  working  on  the  Sabbath,  which  appears  at 
Lc  vi  5  in  Codex  Bezae  only.  Here  however  k,  the  better  African 
MS,  is  missing.  Nos.  12  and  13  are  also  found  in  c,  a  MS  which  in 
this  chapter  has  a  fundamentally  African  text. 

It  is  worth  while  pointing  out  also  that  neither  k  nor  e  is 
extant  for  Mt  iii  15.  The  story  of  the  Fire  on  Jordan  at  the 

1  To  No.  15  perhaps  should  be  added  Me  vii  16  ("He  that  hath  ears  to  hear"), 
which  is  found  in  syr.si/i  as  well  as  r  D  a  b  (biant  e  k). 

2  An  apparent  exception  is  Joh  iii  6  (No.  17),  a  verse  twice  quoted  by  S.  Cyprian 
without  the  final  addition  "For  God  is  a  Spirit,"  but  as  he  does  not  go  on  to  quote 
ver.  1  it  cannot  be  proved  that  the  clause  was  not  in  his  Bible.     The  verse  was 
quoted  with  the  additional  clause  by  S.  Cyprian's  suffragan  Nemesianus  of  Thu- 
bnnae  at  the  Council  of  Carthage. 


THE   WESTERN    INTERPOLATIONS.  49 

Baptism  (No.  3)  is  now  only  found  in  a  among  the  older  texts, 
being  omitted  by  D  b  and  syr.  vt.  It  is  clearly  analogous  to  the 
story  of  the  Light  at  the  Resurrection,  preserved  only  in  k  (Me 
xvi  4,  No.  4) ;  a  has  a  large  element  akin  to  the  African  text,  and 
it  is  probable  that  it  derived  this  interpolation  from  that  element. 
We  may  even  conjecture  that  the  passage  had  a  place  in  the  miss 
ing  leaf  of  k.  In  other  words  the  interpolation  is  not  unlikely  to 
have  had  the  same  origin  as  the  rest  of  those  in  Table  A. 

The  absence  of  several  of  the  most  characteristic  of  these 
passages  from  the  European  Latin  MSS,  and  also  from  the  bi 
lingual  Codex  Bezae,  seems  to  shew  the  sobering  influence  of 
later  Greek  texts. 

This  Table  moreover  affords  one  of  many  indications  that 
syr.  crt  has  been  partially  revised  from  the  Greek.  Most  of  the 
interpolations  it  has  accepted  are  those  found  also  in  the  Textus 
Receptus,  i.e.  interpolations  which  had  a  wide  circulation  in  the 
East  at  the  beginning  of  the  4th  cent.  The  presence  of  the 
long  interpolation  after  Mt  xx  28  in  the  Greek  Uncial  4>  and  in 
syr.  hi.  mg  proves  that  this  passage  also  was  not  unknown  in  later 
times  in  the  East,  though  it  was  not  taken  up  into  the  Antiochian 
text.  No  stress  can  therefore  be  laid  on  its  presence  in  syr.  crt  as 
a  proof  of  special  affinity  with  the  older  forms  of  the  Latin. 

I  have  not  inserted  the  'Longer  Conclusion'  to  S.  Mark  in 
this  list,  from  which  it  differs  entirely  in  character.  In  the  first 
place  it  is  a  supplement  to  an  imperfect  document1,  not  an  inter 
polation  into  a  text  complete  without  it.  Again,  in  internal 
character  it  is  more  like  a  narrative  freely  compiled  from  Lc  and 
Mt  than  the  quite  independent  stories  that  stand  at  the  head  of 
Table  A;  [Me]  xvi  9 — 20  indeed  contains  hardly  a  detail  of  fact 
which  is  not  found  elsewhere  in  the  Gospels  or  Acts.  It  is  there 
fore  of  the  highest  importance  from  the  point  of  view  of  Textual 
Criticism  to  observe  that  the  attestation  of  the  '  Longer  Con 
clusion'  differs  in  a  vital  point  from  that  of  the  passagevS  in 
Table  A.  Codd.  a  and  b  are  unfortunately  missing  here,  but  the 
verses  are  found  in  D  and  in  n,  a  MS  closely  resembling  a  in 

1  In  no  case  would  the  Gospel  have  originally  ended  with  e0o/3oiWo  yap.  Ought 
we  not  indeed  to  print  tyofiovvTo  yap...-  with  a  grave  accent?  It  is  very  unusual  to 
find  clauses,  much  less  paragraphs,  which  end  with  yap.  Cf.  Me  xi  18  and  ix  6. 


THE   OLD    LATIN. 


S.  Mark  ;  there  is  therefore  no  doubt  that  they  are  part  of  the 
European  Latin  text.  But  they  are  absent  from  k.  In  their 
place  k  has  the  well-known  'Shorter  Conclusion',  which  is  found 
also  in  L  and  other  later  Egyptian  texts  as  an  alternative.  In  its 
independence  of  the  genuine  text  of  the  New  Testament  the 
'  Shorter  Conclusion'  resembles  the  more  characteristic  passages 
in  Table  A,  and  seems  to  me  not  improbably  to  belong  to  the 
same  stratum  of  interpolation,  i.e.  to  be  bound  up  with  the  history 
of  the  African  Latin. 

B.     The  Smaller  Interpolations  and  their   Western  Attestation. 


lat.  afr 

lat.  eur 

syr.  vt 

'Re- 

^         i  s 

CKh'td 

Alan  nscrii'tx  ijiwtnl 

D 

A;    Cypr     t 

«          z> 

crt      sin 

Text' 

1.   Mt  vii  21  fin.'}  +  OI'JTOS  elaeXev- 

crerat  a's  rj]v  fiaffiXeiav  T&V 

ovpav&v 

k  Cypr  - 

a          6 

crt 

om. 

2.  Mt  x  23  (pcvyere  cis  ryv  cTtpav] 

V/J.8.S,  (fiei'iyere  ets  TT]V  d\\Tjv 

D 

k 

a          fc 

sin 

om. 

3.  Mt  xxv   1    roO    i>i/jU0toi/]  +  /cat 

TTJS  J/l5/A077S 

D 

—        — 

«          b 

sin 

om. 

4.  Me  iii  32  ot  dSeX^ot  <rou]  +  ffai 

ai  d5eX</>at  (rou 

D 

om. 

a          b 

9 

om. 

5.  Me  iv  9   d/coi'^rw]  H-  /cat  6  cru- 

l>i(j}V  (TWl€T(j} 

D 

a         b 

om. 

om. 

G.  Me    v   33   rp^uoixra]  +  5to    TTC- 

TrotTj/cet  \ddpq. 

D 

om. 

a       om. 

—      — 

om. 

7.  Me  vii  4  xaXKiwi/]  +  /cat  /cXt^tDj/ 

D 

—          — 

a         b 

om. 

r 

8.   Me  vii  13  T]3  TrapaSoffei  V/JLUV} 

+  T^  juwpa 

D 

—          — 

a         b 

om. 

om. 

9.  Me   ix  24   7rat5i'oi>]  +  /xeTa  5a- 

Kpvwv 

D 

om. 

a         b 

om. 

r 

10.  Me  ix  29  Tr/xxrei'Xfl]  +  K  al  vrj- 

<rrei'a 

D 

om. 

a         b 

(sm) 

S" 

11.  Me  x  22  KT-rj/j-ara  TroXXd]  -j-  /cat 

07/301}$ 

om. 

k 

om.       b 

om. 

om. 

12.  Me  x  24  oi/cr/coXoj/  tffnv]  +  TOUJ 

weiroidbras    (irl    (rots)   x/37?' 

/iao-t^ 

D 

om. 

a         b 

sin 

S" 

13.  Me  xii  40  XW^"]  +  Ka^  op^avH>v 

D 

om.        om 

a         b 

om. 

om. 

14.  Me  xiv  68  fin.]  +  Kal  dX^/crwp 

t«6u)«'77(rei' 

D 

A; 

a 

om. 

S" 

THE   WESTERN    INTERPOLATIONS. 


51 


lat.  afr 

lat.  eur 

syr.  vt 

'Re- 

^_        '                   ^ 

i        ,  ^ 

m      i 

ceived 

Manuscripts  quoted 

D 

k    Cypr     c 

a               7> 

crt      sin 

Text' 

15.  Lc  i  28  fin.]  +  ev\oyrjfj.frr}  o-i) 

ev  yvvad-lv 

D 

e 

a         b 

—       

r 

16.  Lc  vi  I  fr  (raj3j3dTi})]  +  devrepo- 

irpwTy 

D 

(e) 

a       om. 

—       — 

S" 

17.  Lc  vi  17   'Iepou(raXr///|  4-  Kal 

Hepalas 

(?) 

om 

rt         b 

-     om. 

om. 

18.  Lc  ix  54  dpaXuVcu  ai5roi5s]  + 

ws  Kal  'HXelas  eiroifjcrev 

D 

om. 

a         b 

om.    om. 

g- 

19.  Lc    xvii    11    TaXtXa/as]  +  et 

Hiericho 

om. 

e 

a         b 

crt    om. 

om. 

20.  Lc   xx  34    01   viol...TotTov]  + 

yevv&VTOii  Kal  yevvuxrtv 

D 

(e) 

a 

crt     sin 

om. 

21.  Lc  xxi  11  2<?Tai]  +  et  hiemes 

om. 

om. 

a 

crt     om. 

om. 

22.  Lc  xxii  68  ov  w  diroKpidiJTe] 

+  1)  diro\vff'rjT€ 

D 

(«) 

a         b 

crt      sin 

r 

23.  Lc  xxiv  42  fydijos  OTTTOV  u^pos] 

+  Kal  dirb  /neXio'O'iov  Kt]piov 
(v.  Krjplov) 

D 

om. 

a         b 

crt     om. 

r 

24.  Joh  iii  6  a"dp£  £ffTiv]  +  oTi  e/c 

TTJS  aap/cos  eyevv^drj 

— 

e 

a         b 

crt     om. 

om. 

25.  Joh  iii  8  tYj  +  ToD  tfdaros  /cai 

— 

e 

a         b 

crt     sin 

om. 

26.  Joh  iii  13   TOV   dvdpiJoTrov]  +  6 

uV  eV  rc^  ovpavip 

— 

(«) 

a         b 

(crt)  (sin) 

g- 

27.  Joh    v   3a    ^pwj/]  +  wapaXvTi- 

KUV 

D 

om. 

a         b 

om. 

om. 

28.  Joh  v  3b  e/f5e%o/A^o>i'  TTJI'  TOU 

OSaros  Klvr)aiv 

D 

e 

a         b 

om. 

r 

29.  Joh  vi  59  Kafiapvaov/j,]  +  <raB- 

pdTil> 

D 

om. 

a       om. 

om.   om. 

om. 

The  difference  of  character  between  the  passages  in  Tables  A 
and  B  is  paralleled  by  the  difference  between  their  attestation. 
In  Table  A  the  passages  were  most  steadily  supported  by  the 
African  text,  while  they  were  almost  wholly  absent  from  the 
earlier  form  of  the  Old  Syriac  as  represented  by  syr.sm.  The 
more  modest  interpolations  comprised  in  Table  B  are  regularly 
found  only  in  the  European  Latin.  Some  of  them  appear  also  in 
syr.sm,  but  on  the  other  hand  about  half  are  absent  from  the 
African  Latin.  No.  14  might  perhaps  have  been  placed  in 
Table  A. 

4—2 


52  THE   OLD    LATIN. 

It  is  worth  noting  that  subsidiary  glosses  are  now  and  then 
found  in  the  European  Latin  in  the  immediate  neighbourhood  of 
the  more  important  interpolations  given  under  Table  A.  Instances 
are  Lc  ix  54,  Job  iii  6  and  v  3. 

Some  few  of  these  '  interpolations'  may  possibly  not  be  inter 
polations  at  all,  but  portions  of  the  true  text  which  have  fallen 
out  in  KB.  This  is  especially  the  case  with  the  addition  in  Mt 
x  23,  which  may  be  held  to  improve  the  run  of  the  sentence ;  the 
longer  reading  here  has  moreover  very  considerable  Greek  support 
in  addition  to  lat.  afr-eur  and  syr.  vt.  Almost  as  much  may  be 
said  for  the  addition  to  Mt  xxv  1,  though  at  this  point  it  is  more 
difficult  to  see  how  the  words  'and  the  bride'  could  have  dropped 
out,  on  the  supposition  that  they  are  genuine. 

The  general  impression  left  on  my  mind  by  Tables  A  and  B 
may  be  expressed  as  follows.  (1)  The  earliest  Latin  version  con 
tained  a  text  of  the  Gospels  enriched  by  additions,  some  of  which 
go  far  beyond  the  mere  inventiveness  of  scribes,  and  must  ulti 
mately  have  been  derived  from  independent  historical  sources.  In 
this  respect  the  African  text  has  most  faithfully  preserved  the 
original  Latin  version.  (2)  Another  series  of  interpolations  of  a 
less  bold  type  is  especially  characteristic  of  the  European  Latin. 
This  series  is  less  certainly  based  on  independent  sources  and 
seems  to  be  of  later  origin,  though  from  the  comparatively  small 
scale  of  each  addition  they  were  easily  introduced  into  MSS  and  so 
are  widely  spread  among  various  types  of  text.  The  comparative 
isolation  of  the  African  text,  which  has  preserved  the  longer  inter 
polations,  has  kept  that  text  more  free  from  these  lesser  interpo 
lations  than  any  other  predominantly  'Western'  text.  (3)  The 
eclectic  texts  of  the  4th  cent,  in  various  languages  took  up  a 
certain  number  of  both  classes  of  interpolations,  some  of  them 
even  finding  a  place  in  the  great  Vulgates  of  later  times. 

C.     Greater  Interpolations  characteristic  of  the  Old  Syriac. 

1.  Mt  iv  9  KCL\  cl-rrev  auro>]  +  '  These  kingdoms  and  their  glory  hast 
thou  seen?1  syr.  sin  [ora.  crt] 

2.  Mt  xxvii  16,  17   ( Jesus  Barabbas'  syr.  sin 

3.  Me  xii  23   (v  rrj  dvao-Tao-fi]  +  ovv  orav  dvao-Ttotriv  syr.  sin 


THE   WESTERN   INTERPOLATIONS.  53 

4.  Me  xiii  8  A.t/u,ot  ]  +  KCU  rapa^ai  syr.  sin 

5.  Lc  xxiii  48  finJ]  +  'and  saying:    Woe  to  us!   what  JIMS  befallen 
us?    Woe  to  us  from  our  sins!'  syr.  sin-crt 

6.  Joh  xi  39  Kvpic,]  +  (why  are  they  taking  away  the  stone?1   syr. sin 

7.  Joh  xii  12  TTJ  eTravptoi/]  -f  'he  went  out  and  came  to  the  Mount 
of  Olives'  syr.  sin 

8.  Joh  xx  1 6   SiScur/coAe]  +  /ecu.  TrpocreSpa/xei/  aif/affOai  aurou       syr.  sin 

Except  in  Nos.  1  and  5  syr.  crt  is  missing,  but  to  Lc  xxiii  43  syr.  crt  adds  KO.L 
Xa/3u>»  TOL  eiriXonra  £8uKev  CLVTOIS  with  the  later  Syriac  and  Latin  versions  (includ 
ing  lat.  vg)  as  well  as  some  Gk  MBS,  but  not  syr.  sin  nor  D  a  b  e ;  in  fact,  this 
gloss  is  found  in  no  document  which  does  not  also  contain  the  clause  about  the 
honey-comb. 

The  Greek  and  Latin  attestation  of  these  additions  is  as  follows. 
Nos.  1,  6  and  7  are  unsupported.  No.  2  was  known  to  Origen  and 
is  found  in  the  group  of  cursives  1-118-209.  No.  3  is  in  r  and 
late  Gk  MSS  generally ;  in  Latin  it  is  found  in  a  (b)  ff  i  q  and  vg. 
No.  4  is  also  in  r,  but  the  Latin  attestation  is  confined  to  q. 
No.  5  appears  to  be  alluded  to  in  Evang.  Petri  §  7,  and  is  found 
with  an  extra  clause  in  the  late  and  professedly  eclectic  MS  gl. 
It  is  a  natural  conjecture  that  yl  derived  it  from  some  Latin 
form  of  the  Diatessaron.  No.  8  is  found  in  Nca,  as  well  as  in  yl 
gat  and  Wordsworth's  DE.  (It  will  be  remembered  that  gl  is 
Wordsworth's  G  in  Me  Lc  and  Joh ;  Westcott  and  Hort  call  it 
ger.  Wordsworth's  E  used  to  be  called  mm.} 

This  list  of  interpolations  found  in  syr.  vt,  but  not  the  older 
Latin  texts,  would  have  been  somewhat  enlarged  if  account  had 
been  taken  of  the  '  Non-  Western  Interpolations'.  Many  of  these 
passages  are  omitted  by  syr.  vt,  but  some  are  retained,  although 
the  balance  of  internal  evidence  is  decidedly  against  them.  A 
notable  instance  is  Lc  xxiv  12,  omitted  by  D  lat.  vt,  but  found  in 
syr.  sin-crt  as  well  as  NBr. 


S.  ISIDORI  HISPALENSIS  Etym.  vi  4. 

Presbyter  quoque  HiERONYMVS  trium  linguarum  peri  bus  ex  Hebraeo 
iii  Latinum  eloquium  easdem  Scripturas  conuertit  eloquenterque 
transfudit,  cvivs  INTERPKETATIO  merito  CETERIS  ANTEFERTVR  ;  NAM  EST 

ET     VERBORVM     TENACIOR     ET     PERSP1CVITATE    SENTENTIAE    clarior,    atque 

utpote  a  Cbristiano  interprete  uerior. 


The  first  half  of  this  statement  was  taken  by  S.  Isidore  from  Aug. 
de  Ciuitate  Dei  xviii  43 ;  the  second  half  is  an  adaptation  of  de  Doctrina 
Christiana  ii  22. 


THE   'IT ALA'. 

THE  non-African  texts  of  the  Old  Latin  were  divided  by  Dr 
Hort  into  sub-families,  '  European '  and  '  Italian  ',  the  latter  term 
being  defined  as  the  text  used  by  S.  Augustine  and  praised  by 
him  under  the  name  of  Itala.  The  object  of  the  following  Essay 
is  to  shew  that  the  text  of  the  Gospels  found  in  S.  Augustine's 
later  works  is  not  an  '  Old  Latin '  text  at  all,  but  the  Vulgate 
itself,  and  that  this  was  the  Itala  commended  by  him  in  the 
famous  passage  of  the  de  Doctrina  Christiana. 

Dr  Hort  assigned  the  Gospel  MSS  /  (Brixianus)  and  q  (Mu- 
nacensis)  to  the  'Italian'  family  (Introd.  §§  110,  111).  These 
codices  differ  from  almost  all  the  other  Old  Latin  MSS  in  containing 
many  Antiochian  readings,  and  it  is  undeniable  that  S.  Augustine's 
quotations  also  contain  many  such  readings1.  But  the  same  is  true 
of  the  Vulgate ;  it  is  therefore  necessary  to  look  more  minutely  at 
the  various  texts  to  ascertain  their  mutual  relations.  For  the  sake 
of  convenience  I  shall  speak  of  the  Revised  Version  of  S.  Jerome 
as  the  Vulgate,  although  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries  the  name 
was  not  uncommonly  used  for  what  is  now  called  the  '  Old  Latin'. 

As  soon  as  the  Latinity  of  the  '  Italian '  group  is  studied  with 
out  special  reference  to  the  type  of  Greek  text  represented  by  the 
various  MSS,  it  becomes  at  once  evident  that  Dr  Hurt's  classifica 
tion  is  unsatisfactory.  The  first  blow  to  it  was  dealt  by  Mr  White 

1  Scrivener's  Introduction  (ed.  4,  vol.  ii,  p.  350)  thus  adduces  the  testimony  of 
S.  Augustine  to  support  the  Keceived  Text  of  Lc  x  41,  42 :  "His  Old  Latin  copies, 
at  any  rate,  contained  the  words  '  ...porro  unum  est  necessarium..."'.  Nmo  'porro' 
never  occurs  in  the  Old  Latin  Gospels.  It  is  found  in  the  Vulgate  in  the  three 
places  Mt  viii  27,  Lc  x  42  and  xi  20,  but  never  in  a  single  Old  Latin  MS,  sed  or 
antem  being  used  instead.  This  instance  alone  would  make  the  use  of  the  Vulgate 
by  S.  Augustine  highly  probable. 


56  THE  'ITALA'. 

in  his  edition  of  q  (Old  Latin  Bibl.  Texts,  iii).  In  that  work  he 
shewed  that,  although /and  q  have  a  good  many  readings  in  com 
mon  that  affect  the  underlying  Greek  text  (mostly  of  an  Antiochian 
type),  their  renderings  of  Greek  words  are  often  quite  different,  / 
as  a  rule  agreeing  with  the  Vulgate  and  q  with  b.  This,  I  may 
add,  is  not  due  to  the  intrusion  of  a  Vulgate  element  in  /.  The 
more  that  MS  is  studied  the  more  evident  appears  the  probability 
of  the  common  opinion,  that  /  is  an  example  of  the  type  of  text 
from  which  S.  Jerome  prepared  his  Revised  Version.  But  neither 
the  renderings  found  in  f,  nor  those  in  q,  nor  those  found  in  both 
combined,  agree  especially  with  those  of  S.  Augustine's  quotations, 
except  where  they  also  agree  with  the  Vulgate1. 

What  then  was  the  text  actually  used  by  S.  Augustine  ? 

To  reconstruct  S.  Augustine's  Bible  is  a  task  of  much  difficulty. 
In  the  first  place  it  is  most  important  to  separate  off  the  quota 
tions  made  by  S.  Augustine  at  first  hand  from  the  Bible  from  those 
which  he  makes  in  quoting  the  works  of  others.  In  the  latter  case 
he  keeps  to  the  Biblical  text  used  by  the  person  from  whom  he  is 
quoting.  A  good  instance  is  de  Doct.  Christ,  iii  30  ff,  where  more 
than  twenty  verses  of  the  Bible  are  quoted  accurately  from 
Tyconius,  though  Tyconius's  own  words  are  paraphrased. 

Not  less  necessary  is  it  to  note  the  date  of  each  treatise.  In 
some  of  S.  Augustine's  earlier  works,  as  for  instance  the  contra 
Faustum,  the  old  African  text  is  clearly  visible  even  in  the  quota 
tions  from  the  Gospel.  Thus  to  render  otVoTror?;?,  '  wine-bibber ', 
in  Mt  xi  19  (Lc  vii  34)  we  have 

'  potator '  a  b  q  (Mt)  but    '  uinaria  '  k  Aug2/3  (Mt) 

'  potator  uini '  cf  vg  (Mt)  '  uinarius '  e  r  (Lc) 

'  uini  potator  '  dh  (Mt) ;  c  dl  (Lc) 

('uinosus'  Aug'/a  Epp ;   Aug 

'  bibens  uinuni '  a  bjfqfvg  (Lc)  de  bono  coniug  has  'uinaria' 

codd.  opt,  but  'uinarius'  codd, 
1  potator  uini '  codd) 

Here  we  see  how  the  rare  word  uinaria,  preserved  in  the  African 
authorities,  has  been  variously  improved  away  in  the  other  MSS, 
while  S.  Augustine  himself  once  substitutes  uinosus.  'Africanisms 

1  See  the  Note  on  the  text  of  the  de  Coliseum  for  an  example. 


THE  'ITALA'.  57 

of  this  kind  are  rare  in  his  later  writings,  though  not  entirely 
absent  in  the  case  of  quotations  made  from  memory. 

The  three  works  of  S.  Augustine  which  will  come  under  im 
mediate  consideration  in  this  Essay  were  written  in  the  few  years 
preceding  and  following  400  AD.  The  mention  of  the  Itala  occurs 
in  the  first  edition  of  de  Doctrina  Christiana,  issued  in  397  AD, 
and  the  Acta  contra  Felicem  date  from  404.  At  some  date  between 
these  limits  comes  the  publication  of  de  Consensu  Euangelistarum. 
It  may  be  convenient  here  to  remind  ourselves  that  the  Vulgate 
Gospels  were  issued  in  384,  the  rest  of  the  Bible  following  at  inter 
vals  till  about  405,  so  that  when  S.  Augustine  was  writing  the  de 
Doctrina  Christiana  the  portions  of  S.  Jerome's  version  actually 
published  were  the  N.  Test.,  Sam.  and  Kings,  Ezr.  and  Nehem., 
and  the  sixteen  Prophets. 

S.  Augustine's  relations  with  the  Vulgate  have  not,  I  venture 
to  think,  been  properly  understood.  It  will  indeed  be  acknow 
ledged  by  all  that  to  the  end  of  his  days  in  short  easily  remembered 
phrases  from  the  Gospel  S.  Augustine  often  used  the  Old  Latin. 
In  other  words,  there  is  no  doubt  that  in  the  kind  of  quotation 
where  it  is  least  likely  that  a  writer  would  look  the  passage  up  in 
his  Codex  he  used  the  type  of  text  current  in  his  younger  days. 
But  what  I  believe  has  not  received  sufficient  attention  is  the 
remarkable  extant  evidence  tending  to  shew  that  during  S.  Au 
gustine's  episcopate,  from  about  400  AD  onwards,  the  Church  at 
Hippo  read  the  Gospels  from  S.  Jerome's  version,  though  for  the 
Acts  it  retained  a  very  pure  form  of  the  Old  African  Latin. 

The  evidence  is  as  follows.  In  AD  404  a  Manichee  preacher 
named  Felix  appeared  at  Hippo,  where  he  was  arrested  and  brought 
to  trial  before  the  ecclesiastical  courts.  This  trial  is  reported  at 
length  in  the  tract  called  Acta  contra  Felicem  Manichaeum  (or 
Aug.  contra  Felicem).  The  statements  of  Felix  about  the  coming 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  had  been  so  unsatisfactory  that  S.  Augustine 
determined  to  read  to  him  the  full  Biblical  account.  Accordingly 
a  codex  of  the  Gospels  was  handed  to  him  and  he  read  from  it  to 
Felix  Lc  xxiv  36 — 49.  Having  read  these  verses  he  gave  back  the 
book  of  the  Gospels  and  was  then  handed  a  codex  of  the  Acts,  from 
which  he  read  the  whole  of  the  first  chapter  and  the  first  eleven 
verses  of  the  second.  What  S.  Augustine  read  out  is  given  in 


58  THE  'ITALA'. 

extenso  in  our  MSS  of  Aug.  contra  Felicem,  and  an  examination  of  the 
two  passages  leads  to  the  surprising  result  that  the  passage  from 
S.  Luke  is  pure  Vulgate,  while  the  text  of  the  Acts  is  that  of  S. 
Cyprian — the  very  oldest  form  of  the  African  version  known  to  us. 
This  very  remarkable  state  of  things  cannot  very  well  be  the  result 
of  corruption  in  our  MSS  of  Aug.  contra  Felicem,  for  had  the  Gospel 
passage  been  corrected  wholesale  to  the  Vulgate,  it  is  difficult  to 
see  why  the  still  longer  passage  from  the  Acts  should  have  wholly 
escaped.  We  cannot  therefore  but  conclude  that  the  codex  of  the 
Gospels  handed  to  S.  Augustine  was  a  Vulgate  codex,  and  the 
codex  of  the  Acts  was  an  Old  Latin  codex  containing  an  '  African ' 
text — in  other  words,  that  by  404  AD  the  Gospels  were  read  at 
Hippo  from  the  Vulgate,  while  in  some  other  books  of  the  Bible, 
such  as  the  Acts,  the  unrevised  Old  Latin  was  still  publicly  used1. 

To  such  a  composite  late  African  New  Testament  belongs  the 
Fleury  Palimpsest  (h),  a  6th  cent.  MS  of  the  Apocalypse,  Acts,  and 
Catholic  Epistles.  M.  JBerger,  its  editor,  has  acutely  pointed  out 
that,  while  the  Acts  and  Apocalypse  are  Cyprianic  in  character, 
the  text  of  the  Cath.  Epp.  is  distinctly  late  African2.  Indeed  the 
mere  fact  that  the  MS  contains  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter  is 
enough  to  shew  that  it  does  not  represent  exclusively  the  old 
African  tradition.  But  the  mixed  character  of  the  text  of  h  is 
accounted  for,  when  we  recognise  that  while  the  late  African 
Church  accepted  8.  Jerome's  revision  of  the  Gospels  and  enlarged 
its  Canon  by  receiving  all  seven  Catholic  Epistles,  it  nevertheless 
retained  the  old  version  of  the  Acts  arid  Apocalypse. 

This  remarkable  eclecticism  is  also  borne  out  by  what  we 
actually  find  in  some  of  S.  Augustine's  own  works.  To  begin 
with  we  have  his  direct  approval  of  S.  Jerome's  recension  of  the 
Gospels.  In  403  AD,  the  year  before  the  episode  of  Felix,  8. 
Augustine  wrote  to  S.  Jerome  to  express  his  doubts  as  to  the 
expediency  of  the  great  changes  made  by  the  latter  in  the  Old 
Testament  but  said  at  the  same  time  :  "  Proinde  non  paruas  Deo 
gratias  agimus  de  opere  tuo  quod  Euangelium  ex  Graeco  interpre- 
tatus  es,  quia  paene  in  omnibus  nulla  otfensio  est."  Nor  was  this 
approval  academic  only.  The  evidence  that  the  Gospel  text  in  S. 

1  See  Note  i  for  the  text  of  what  S.  Augustine  read. 

2  S.  Berger,  Le  Palimpseste  de  Floury,  p.  18. 


THE  'ITALA'.  59 

Augustine's  great  critical  work  de  Consensu  Euangelistarum  (circ. 
400  AD)  was  based  exclusively  on  the  Vulgate  is  simply  over 
whelming.  The  circumstance  that  the  work  includes  several  well- 
known  references  to  Old  Latin  readings  (given  as  the  text  of 
'some  codices')  has  apparently  obscured  the  fact  that  the  text 
accepted  by  S.  Augustine  as  the  base  of  his  explanations  is  not  a 
form  however  late  of  the  so-called  Vet  us  Itala,  but  the  Revised 
Version  of  S.  Jerome  itself  with  all  its  peculiarities.  A  full  exami 
nation  of  the  Gospel  text  of  the  de  Consensu  is  given  in  Note  n  to 
this  Essay ;  I  shall  here  merely  quote  the  judgment  of  Sabaticr, 
who  will  certainly  not  be  accused  of  prejudice  in  such  a  case  as 
this.  Speaking  of  sources  whence  quotations  from  the  '  Itala '  may 
be  drawn,  he  says  (Praef.  ad  vol.  i,  p.  Ivii) :  "  Leve  etiam  modicum- 
que  est  quod  suppeditarunt  libri  de  consensu  Evangelistary  m. 
Collatis  namque  his  Augustini  libris  cum  Vulgata  nostra,  utraque 
interpretatio  una  &  eadem  esse  visa  est ;  quod  tamen  de  unis  acci- 
piendum  est  Evangeliis,  quorum  Augustinus  interpretationem  ab 
Hieronymo  adornatum  sic  adhibuit,  ut  nihilominus  alios  Scripture 
libros,  tarn  ipsius  novi,  quam  vetcris  Testament!,  juxta  antiquam 
LXX.  interpretationem  laudarit.  Hinc  quamvis  nullas  Evange- 
liorum  ex  eo  libro,  plurimas  tamen  Actuum  Apostolorum,  necnon 
&  Epistolarum  &  Apocalypsis  sententias  a  Vulgata  nostra  discre- 
pantes  reperimus,  nee  praBtermisimus." 

The  mass  of  evidence  which  I  have  collected  in  the  Note  upon 
the  Biblical  text  of  the  de  Consensu  will  I  think  carry  conviction. 
In  the  work,  therefore,  for  which  accuracy  of  textual  detail  was 
most  necessary  S.  Augustine  used  the  Vulgate  as  the  basis  of  his 
argument,  A  recognition  of  this  fact  will  clear  up  many  difficulties 
presented  by  the  Gospel  quotations  in  the  rest  of  his  later  works. 
Their  general  character  is  a  Vulgate  base  with  occasional  Old 
Latin  readings.  This  non-Vulgate  element  is  mostly  late  African, 
and  not  so  far  as  we  know  North  Italian,  in  character ;  its  inser 
tion  into  the  Vulgate  text  appears  to  be  mostly  fortuitous.  That 
is  to  say,  he  quotes  a  verse  (e.g.  in  his  Homilies  on  S.  John)  in 
accordance  sometimes  with  the  Vulgate,  sometimes  with  an  Old 
Latin  reading,  the  latter  being  perhaps  due  to  a  reminiscence  of 
the  text  of  his  younger  days.  In  other  words  he  is  just  such  an 
authority  as  the  '  mixed  '  MSS  ffl  or  I,  and  only  of  independent  value 


60  THE  'ITALA'. 

for  the  criticism  of  the  pre-Hieronymian  texts  where  he  differs 
from  the  Vulgate. 

'  But ',  it  will  be  said, '  is  it  not  the  case  that  S.  Augustine  used 
a  certain  form  of  the  Old  Latin  called  by  him  Itala  interpretatio, 
which  he  praises  as  uerborum  tenacior  ? ' 

This  objection,  which  I  think  fairly  expresses  what  is  generally 
held  about  S.  Augustine's  text,  is  based  of  course  upon  the  famous 
passage  in  the  De  Doctrina  Christiana  ii  22,  where  he  says :  "  in 
ipsis  autem  interpretationibus  Itala  ceteris  praeferatur,  nam  est 
uerborum  tenacior  cum  perspicuitate  sententiae  ".  It  is  generally 
assumed  that  Itala  cannot  refer  to  the  Vulgate,  because  S.  Augus 
tine  notoriously  used  the  Old  Latin,  and  held  the  LXX  in  very 
high  esteem.  But  that  this  difficulty  was  not  felt  in  ancient  times 
is  sufficiently  proved  by  the  quotation  from  S.  Isidore's  Etymo- 
logium  which  stands  as  a  motto  to  this  Essay.  I  trust  also  that  the 
facts  which  I  have  brought  forward  about  the  de  Consensu  will  help 
to  remove  the  difficulty,  at  least  so  far  as  regards  the  text  of  the 
Gospels. 

There  are  many  objections  to  taking  '  Itala '  to  mean  a  certain 
Old  Latin  text  out  of  the  many  then  extant,  especially  if  it  refers 
to  the  forms  of  the  New  Testament.  It  has  often  been  urged  by 
Bentley  and  others  that  S.  Augustine  never  again  praises  this 
hypothetical  version,  though  he  does  elsewhere  praise  S.  Jerome's 
translation  of  the  Prophets  for  its  fidelity  (De  Giuit.  Dei  xviii  42). 
A  more  serious  difficulty  is  that  it  is  not  usual  for  S.  Augustine 
when  referring  to  the  various  forms  of  the  Old  Latin  to  call  them 
interpretationes.  It  is  true  that  he  speaks  vaguely  of  interpretum 
numerositas  and  uses  similar  phrases  in  speaking  of  what  happened 
in  the  first  ages  of  the  faith ;  but  his  usual  way  of  speaking  of 
what  we  call  Old  Latin  readings  is  that  such  and  such  a  translation 
is  found  'in  some  codices'.  Once  at  least  he  speaks  of  a  reading 
which  is  attested  by  S.  Cyprian  as  found  'in  many  codices,  but 
they  are  African  '  (codices  plurimos  uerumtamen  afros,  Retr.  i  21). 
On  the  other  hand  S.  Augustine  actually  uses  interpreter*  of 
5.  Jerome's  revision  of  the  Gospels,  as  opposed  to  '  Old  Latin '  in 
general,  and  the  same  is  true  to  a  still  greater  extent  for  the  Old 
Testament. 

But  the  form  of  the  sentence  '  in  ipsis  autem  interpretationibus  ' 


THE  'ITALA'.  61 

shews  that  the  words  must  be  taken  with  what  goes  before,  and 
in  the  attempts  to  identify  the  Itala  I  do  not  think  sufficient 
weight  has  hitherto  been  generally  allowed  to  the  nature  of 
S.  Augustine's  argument  in  the  five  chapters  preceding  De  Doct. 
Christ,  ii  22,  or  to  the  examples  he  has  used  to  support  it. 

He  says  in  §  16:  "propter  diuersitates  ut  dictum  est  inter- 
pretum,  illarum  linguarum  est  cognitio  necessaria.  qui  enim 
Script uras  ex  hebraea  lingua  in  graecam  uerterunt  numerari 
possunt,  latirii  autem  interpretes  nullo  modo ;  ut  enim  cuique 
primis  fidei  temporibus  in  manus  uenit  codex  graecus  et  ali- 
quantulum  facultatis  sibi  utriusque  linguae  habere  uidebatur, 
ausus  est  interpretari ".  After  these  celebrated  words  he  goes  on 
immediately  to  say  that  this  state  of  things  is  not  altogether 
unfortunate  (§  17):  "  Quae  quidem  res  plus  adiuuit  intellegentiam 
quam  impediuit,  si  modo  legentes  non  sint  neglegentes.  nam 
nonnullas  obscuriores  sententias  plurium  codicum  saepe  mani- 
festabit1  inspectio."  Here  follow  four  instances,  all  of  which  are  of 
the  highest  importance  for  understanding  his  point  of  view,  both 
in  respect  of  the  examples  themselves  and  of  the  way  in  which 
they  are  introduced.  The  first  two  are  from  Isaiah  and  contain 
a  comparison,  not  of  two  Old  Latin  texts  with  each  other,  but  of 
the  Old  Latin  with  the  modern  Vulgate.  He  says :  "  sicut  illud 
Isaiae  prophetae  unus  interpres  ait  Et  domesticos  seminis  tui  ne 
despexeris ;  alius  autem  ait  Et  carnem  tuam  ne  despexeris  ".  The 
first  passage  is  Isaiah  Iviii  7  from  the  LXX,  the  second  is  the  same 
passage  from  the  Vulgate.  A  little  lower  down  he  goes  on  to 
say :  "  Item  illud  eiusdem  Isaiae  prophetae  Nisi  credideritis  non 
intellegetis  alius  interpretatus  est  Nisi  credideritis  non  per- 
manebitis,"  i.e.  a  quotation  of  Isaiah  vii  9,  first  from  the  LXX,  then 
from  the  Vulgate.  All  this  agrees  with  what  he  says  in  §  22 
(quoted  below) :  "  As  far  as  the  0.  T.  is  concerned  the  authority  of 
the  LXX  is  paramount ;  yet,  as  I  said  above,  the  collation  of  those 
translators  who  have  stuck  more  closely  (tenacius)  to  the  words  is 
not  without  its  use."  Evidently  therefore  this  sentence  refers  to 
the  pair  of  examples  which  I  have  just  quoted,  and  with  regard  to 
which  S.  Augustine  says  that  both  translations  are  good  for 
edification.  One  of  these  translations  is  the  Latin  rendering  of  the 

1  Ed.  manifestavit. 


62  THE  'ITALA'. 

LXX;  hence  the  other,  with  which  S.  Augustine  has  'collated* 
Isaiah  vii  9  and  Iviii  7,  is  that  translation  which  'sticks  more 
closely  to  the  words '.  But  this  alternative  text  is  none  other  than 
the  Vulgate ! 

To  these  examples  from  Isaiah  are  added  one  from  the  Psalms, 
a  book  for  which  S.  Augustine  in  common  with  the  rest  of  the 
Western  Church  never  thought  of  using  an  interpretatio  from  the 
Hebrew1,  and  one  from  the  book  of  Wisdom,  of  which  the  Hebrew 
does  not  exist.  In  the  latter  case  he  blames  the  common  reading 
(spuria)  uitulamina  in  Wisd  iv  3,  and  wishes  to  substitute 
adulterinae  plantation's ;  but  he  says  that  the  former  reading — 
which  by  the  way  is  attested  by  S.  Optatus — is  so  common  '  ut  uix 
inueniatur  aliter  scriptum '.  Here  we  seem  to  be  dealing  with  a 
mere  conjectural  emendation  from  the  Greek.  In  the  example 
from  the  Psalms  he  says  '  quidam  codices  habent  acuti  pedes '  in 
Ps  xiii  3  for  ueloces  pedes,  and  he  rejects  the  former  reading 
absolutely,  saying  that  it  is  a  mere  mistranslation  of  the  Greek 
of ^?.  All  extant  Latin  authorities  have  here  ueloces,  but  it  is 
probable  that  acuti  is  the  genuine  African  rendering  in  this 
phrase.  The  verse  is  not  quoted  by  S.  Cyprian;  but  in  Ps  xliv  1 
for  ogvypdfov,  where  most  Latins  have  uelociter  scribentis,  he  has 
acute  scribentis  (Test  II  29  codd.  opt)2.  This  rough  '  comparative 
criticism '  of  Latin  variants  by  means  of  the  Greek  is  doubtless 
what  S.  Augustine  means  by  the  words  which  sum  Tip  the 
discussion  at  the  end  of  §  21  :  "  plurimum  hie  quoque  iuuat 
interpretum  numerositas  collatis  codicibus  inspecta  atque  discussa, 
tantum  abest  falsitas ;  nam  codicibus  emendandis  primitus  debet 
inuigilare  solertia  eorum  qui  Scripturas  diuinas  nosse  desiderant, 
ut  emendatis  non  emendati  cedant,  ex  eo  duntaxat  interpretations 
genere  uenientes  ".  He  means,  I  suppose,  that  we  may  emend  one 
Old  Latin  codex  by  another,  or  by  the  Greek  itself,  but  we  cannot 
correct  a  translation  from  the  Hebrew  by  a  translation  from  the 
Greek,  or  vice  versa,  for  both  of  these  are  authoritative. 

Both  the  Greek  and  the  Hebrew  are  authoritative,  and,  as  he 
endeavoured   to   shew   by   his    examples   from    Isaiah,   both    are 

1  Cf.  especially  §  20  ante  med. 

2  So  the  Oxford  MR  Oj ;  L  has  acute  scribens :  Hartel's  text  has  the  common 
reading. 


THE   '  ITALA  '.  63 

spiritually  instructive  even  where  they  differ.  Yet  there  must 
come  places  where  we  have  to  choose  between  them,  and  he  goes 
on  to  say  (§  22) :  "  In  ipsis  autem  interpretationibus  Itala  ceteris 
praeferatur  ".  Taken  with  what  has  gone  before,  does  it  not  seem 
probable  that  the  other  interpretatio ,  which  is  not  the  LXX,  is  here 
meant  ?  S.  Augustine  does  not  say  he  always  uses  the  '  Itala';  in 
deed  his  whole  argument  is  to  prove  that  to  the  understanding  man 
the  very  diversities  of  translations  are  instructive.  But  we  have 
seen  that  he  does  sometimes  use  the  Vulgate  Gospels,  especially 
where  minute  accuracy  is  required,  while  in  the  Old  Testament  we 
have  seen  that  while  habitually  using  the  LXX — i.e.  the  Old 
Latin — he  values  the  new  translation  highly  and  occasionally  uses 
it  for  comparison1. 

I  venture  to  think  that  S.  Augustine,  while  writing  De  Doct. 
Christ,  ii  22,  had  in  mind  the  Epistula  ad  Damasum,  S.  Jerome's 
celebrated  preface  to  the  Vulgate  Gospels.  The  same  sequence  of 
thought  is  expressed  in  both  passages  in  the  same  order  though  in 
different  language.  For  purposes  of  comparison  I  give  the  two 
passages  in  parallel  columns. 

Aug.  de  Doct.   Christ,  ii  22  Hieron.  Ep.  ad  Damasum 

In  ipsis  aiitem  interpretationibus  Si  enim  Latinis  exemplaribus 

Itala  ceteris  praeferatur,  nam  est  fides  est  adhibenda,  respondeant 

uerborum  tenacior  cum  perspicui-  quibus :  tot  sunt  paene  quot 

tate  sententiae.  codices. 

Et  Latinis  quibuslibet  emen-  Sin  autem  ueritas  est  quaerenda 

dandis  (le  pluribus,  cur  11011  ad  Graecam 

Graeci  adhibeantur  oriyinem  reuertentes  ea  quae...aut 

in  quibus  addita  sunt  aut  mutata  corrigi- 

mus? 

1  E.g.  De  Doct.  Christ,  iv  16,  where  Am  vi  1 — 6  is  quoted  expressly  from  the 
Vulgate.  This  latter  part  of  the  work  dates  from  426  AD.  It  is  probable  that  in 
397  AD,  when  the  first  three  books  up  to  iii  35  were  written,  S.  Jerome's  Pentateuch 
was  not  yet  issued.  Possibly  some  expressions  may  have  been  altered  when  the 
second  edition,  which  we  now  possess,  was  published.  The  only  quotation  of  any 
significance  from  the  Gospels  in  this  part  of  the  work  is  in  ii  62,  where  Mt  xi  28 — 30 
is  cited  with  all  the  characteristics  of  S.  Augustine's  quotations  from  memory. 
They  are :— (i)  Vulgate  element,  reficiam  uos;  (ii)  African  element,  sarcina; 
(iii)  Peculiar  elements  (i.e.  inaccuracies),  (1)  om.  omnes,  (2)  lene  for  '  bonuin ' 
(afr.)  or  'suaue'  (eur-vg). 


64  THE  'ITALA'. 

LXX  interpretum  Neque  uero  ego  cle  ueteri  disputo 

quod     ad     uetus      testamentum  testamento  quod  a  LXX  senioribus 

attinet  in  Graecam  linguara 

excellit    auctoritas...sed     tarn  en  uersum    tertio    gradu     ad    nos 

ut    superius    dixi    horum    quoque  usque  peruenit.     Non  quaero  quid 

interpretum    qui    uerbis    tenacius  Aquila  quid   Symmachus   sapiant, 

inhaeserunt    conlatio   non   est   in-  quare  Theodotion  inter  nouos   et 

utilis  ad  explanandum  saepe  sen-  ueteres  medius  incedat:  sit  ilia  uera 

tentiain.       Latini    ergo    ut    dicere  inter pretatio    quam    apostoli    pro- 

coeperam     codices     ueteris     testa-  bauerunt. 
menti  si  necesse  fuerit  Graecorum 
auctoritate  emendandi  stint... 

Libros  autem  noui  testamenti  si  De  nouo  nunc  loquor  testamento 

quid  in  Latinis  uarietatihus  titubat  quod  Graecum  esse 

Graecifi  cedere  oportere  nondubium  non  dubium  est. 
est,  et  maxirne  qui  apud  Ecclesias 
doctiores  et  diligentiores    repperi- 
untur. 

The  last  clause  of  this  extract  (which  has  no  parallel  in  the 
Ep.  ad  Damasum)  I  believe  to  be  a  direct  reference  to  the  one 
great  Biblical  scholar  of  the  day,  the  learned  and  industrious 
S.  Jerome  himself. 

One  objection  remains  to  be  noticed.  If  S.  Augustine  was 
thinking  of  the  Vulgate,  why  should  he  call  it  Italian  ?  I  do  not 
think  this  objection  is  fatal.  In  spite  of  all  that  has  been  written 
on  the  word  italus  to  prove  that  it  meant  in  the  fourth  century 
North  Italian,  few  will  doubt  that  it  might  mean  Italian  in  a 
more  general  sense  in  the  work  of  an  African  writing  to  Africans1. 
At  least  Arnobius  the  African  twice  calls  Latin  sermo  italus.  Now 
the  Vulgate  Gospels,  the  first  part  of  the  new  work  to  come  out, 
were  published  in  Italy  at  the  instigation  and  under  the  patronage 
of  the  Pope  of  Rome.  And  though  S.  Jerome  had  gone  to 
Bethlehem  when  the  Doctrina  Christiana  was  being  written, 
S.  Augustine  was  not  aware  of  the  fact,  as  he  sent  about  this 
time  letters  to  S.  Jerome  to  Italy,  where  they  were  opened  and 
read  by  his  enemies.  As  opposed  to  the  'African  codices'  or 

1  On  this  point  see  Ronsch,  Collectanea  266,  on  the  phrase  of  Nonius  Marcellus : 
'ita  ut  nunc  Itali  dicunt'. 


THE  'ITALA'.  65 

the  Greek  Bible  the  Vulgate  was  'Italian'  to  S.  Augustine1. 
But  this  does  not  directly  affect  the  main  point  which  I  have 
endeavoured  to  prove;  which  is,  that  the  evidence  afforded  by 
the  Gospel  text  of  the  De  Consensu  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
arguments  and  examples  used  by  S.  Augustine  in  De  Doctrina 
Christiana  ii  17 — 21  on  the  other,  so  decisively  point  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  translation  which  he  calls  Itala  is  the 
Revised  Version  of  S.  Jerome,  that  very  strong  positive  evidence 
would  be  required  to  make  any  other  identification  equally 
probable. 

1  For  S.  Augustine's  use  of  the  word  italus  elsewhere  we  may  compare  de 
Ordine  ii  45.  Speaking  of  a  correct  style  and  pronunciation  he  says:  "me  enim 
ipsum,  cui  magna  necessitas  fuit  ista  perdiscere,  adhuc  in  multis  uerborum  sonis 
Itali  exagitant,  et  a  me  uicissim  quod  ad  ipsum  sonum  adtinet  reprehenduntur. 

aliud  est  enim  esse  arte  aliud  gente  securum Barbarismorum  autem  genus 

nostris  temporibus  tale  compertum  est,  ut  et  ipsa  eius  oratio  barbara  uideatur  qua 
Roma  seruata  est."  Here  therefore  the  'Italian'  pronunciation  is  that  of  Rome 
itself,  a  pronunciation  which  the  African  S.  Augustine,  in  spite  of  a  good  education, 
had  only  imperfectly  attained. 


NOTE   I. 

S.  Augustine  and  Felix  the  Manichee. 

The  following  extract  is  taken  from  Aug.  contra  Felicem,  i.e. 
the  report  of  the  trial  of  Felix  (C.  S.  E.  L.  XXV.  pp.  802 — 807, 
edited  by  Zycha).  In  the  footnotes  to  the  quotation  of  Lc  xxiv 
36 — 49  I  have  given  the  readings  of  Wordsworth  and  White's 
text  of  the  Vulgate  (=  vg),  in  the  few  places  where  it  differs  from 
the  contra  Felicem. 

AUGUSTINUS  dixit :  Quoniam  ergo  tu '  probare  non  potuisti  quo- 
modo  sit  Manichaeus  apostolus  Christi,  et  exigis  ut  ego  probem 
quoraodo  miserit  Spiritum  Sanctum  Paracletum  quern  promisit,  ut 
tune  respuas  scripturas  Manichaei,  si  inueneris  inpletam  promissionem 
Christi  praeter  scripturas  Manichaei,  quarnuis  prior  ad  interrogata  mea 
respondere  debueris,  tamen  ecce  ego  prior  respondeo  et  ostendo  tibi, 
quando  missus  sit  Spiritus  Sanctus  quern  Ohriatus  promisit.  et  accedit 
ad  Euangelium  et  Actus  Apostolorum. 

Et  cum  accepisset  codicem  Euangelii,  recitauit :  36Dum  autem  haec 
loquuntur,  stetit  lesus  in  medio  eorum  et  dixit  eis :  pax  uobis ;  ego 
sum,  nolite  timere.  et  cum  legeret,  dixit :  hoc  post  resurrectionem.  et 
cum  dixisset,  legit :  37conturbati  uero  et  conterriti  aestimabant  se 
spiritum  uidere.  38  et  dixit  eis :  quid  turbati  estis  et  cogitationes 
ascendunt  in  corda  uestra1?  39uidete  manus  meas  et  pedes,  quia  ego 
ipse  sum ;  palpate  et  uidete,  quia  spiritus  carnem  et  ossa  non  habet, 
sicut  me  uidetis  habere.  40et  cum  hoc  dixisset,  ostendit  eis  manus  et 
pedes.  41Adhuc  autem  illis  non  credentibus  et  mirantibus  prae  gaudio 
dixit :  habetis  hie  aliquid  quod  manducetur  1  42at  illi  obtulerunt  ei 

36  haec  autem  vg  lesus  stetit  vg  dixit]  dicit  vg  37  existima- 

bant  vg  39  ipse  ego  vg 

1  I.e.  Felix, 


S.    AUGUSTINE   AND    FELIX    THE   MANICHEE.  67 

partem  piscis  assi  et  fauum  mellis.  43et  cum  manducasset  coram  eis, 
sumens  reliquias  dedit  eis.  44Et  dixit  ad  eos  :  haec  sunt  uerba  quae 
locutus  sum  ad  uos  cum  adhuc  essem  uobiscum,  quoniam  necesse  est 
inpleri  omnia  quae  scripta  sunt  in  lege  Moysi  et  prophetis  et  psalmis 
de  me.  45tunc  aperuit  illis  sensum  ut  intellegerent  scripturas,  46et 
dixit  eis :  quoniam  sic  scriptum  est  et  sic  oportebat  Christum  pati  et 
resurgere  a  mortuis  die  tertio,  47et  praedicari  in  nomine  eius  paeni- 
tentiam  et  remissionem  peccatorum  in  omnes  gentes,  incipientibus  ab 
Hierusalem.  48uos  autem  estis  testes  horum.  49et  ego  mittam  pro- 
missum  patris  mei  in  uos ;  uos  autem  sedete  in  ciuitate,  quoad  usque 
induamini  uirtutem  ex  alto,  et  cum  reddidisset  codicem  Euangelii, 

accepit  Actus  Apostolorum 

Et  recitauit  ex  Actibus  Apostolorum1:  ^rimuin  quidem  sermonem  Ac  i 
feci  de  omnibus,  o  Theophile,  quae  coepit  lesus  facere  et  docere  2in  die 
quo  apostolos  elegit  per  Spiritum  Sanctum  et  praecepit  praedicare 
Euangelium :  3quibus  praebuit  se  uiuum  post  passionem  in  multis 
argumentis  dierum  uisus  eis  dies  quadraginta  et  docens  de  regno  Dei, 
4et  quomodo  conuersatus  est  cum  illis,  et  praecepit  eis  ne  discederent  ab 
Hierosolymis,  sed  sustinerent  pollicitationem  Patris,  quam  audistis, 
inquit,  ex  ore  meo;  5quoniam  lohannes  quidem  baptizauit  aqua,  uos 
autem  Spiritu  Sancto  incipietis  baptizari,  quern  et  accepturi  estis  non 
post  multos  istos  dies  usque  ad  Pentecosten.  6illi  ergo  conuenientes 
interrogabant  eum  dicentes:  Domine,  si  in  hoc  tempore  praesentabis 
regnum  Israhel  1  7ille  autem  dixit :  nemo  potest  cognoscere  tempus 
quod  pater  posuit  in  sua  potestate ;  8sed  accipietis  uirtutem  Spiritus 
Sancti  superuenientem  in  uos,  et  eritis  mihi  testes  apud  Hierosolymam 
et  in  tota  ludaea  et  Samaria  et  usque  in  totam  terram.  9cum  haec 
diceret,  nubes  suscepit  eum  et  sublatus  est  ab  eis.  10et  quomodo 
conternplantes  erant  cum  iret  in  caelum,  ecce  duo  uiri  astabant  illis  in 
ueste  alba,  uqui  dixerunt  ad  eos:  uiri  Galilaei,  quid  statis  respicientes 

44  Mosi  vg.  codd.  opt  46  die  tertia  vg  (exc  AY)  47  Hierosolyma  vg 

49  mitto  vg.  codd.  opt 

1  fecimus  Fund.  cod.  opt  2  die  qua  Fund;  usque  in  diem  quo  de  Cons  prae- 
ceperit  Fund  et  praecepit]  mandans  iussit  de  Cons  3  uisus  est  eis  per  Fund 
4  et  1°]  om.  Fund,  codd  est]  sit  Fund  5  dies  istos  Fund  6  ergo]  quidem  Fund 
conuenientes]  cum  uenissent  Fund  hoc  in  tempore  Fund  praesentabis]  repre- 
sentaberis  et  quando  Fund  S  Hierusalem  Fund  terram]  H  Fund 

1  The  variants  given  are  those  of  Aug's  quotations  of  Ac  i,  ii  in  contra  Ep. 
Fundamenti  (C.  S.  E.  L.  xxv,  pp.  203,  204).  For  the  first  two  verses  of  Acts  there 
is  a  further  parallel  in  Aug.  de  Consensu  iv  8,  a  quotation  made  probably  from 
memory.  The  Vulgate  text  of  Ac  i  1 — 4  is  given  below,  p.  70. 

5—2 


68  THE  'ITALA'. 

in  caelum  ?  iste  lesus  qui  adsumptus  est  in  caelum  a  uobis  sic  ueniet, 
quemadmodum  uidistis  eum  euntem  in  caelum.  12tunc  reuersi  sunt 
Hierosolymam  a  monte  qui  uocatur  Eicon,  qui  est  iuxta  Hierosolymam 
sabbati  habens  iter.  13et  cum  introissent,  ascenderunt  in  superiora,  ubi 
habitabant  Petrus  et  Johannes,  lacobus  et  Andreas,  Philippus  et 
Thomas,  Bartholomaeus  et  Matthaeus,  lacobus  Alphaei  et  Symon 
Zelotes  et  ludas  lacobi.  14et  erant  perseuerantes  omnes  unanimes  in 
orationibus  cum  mulieribus  et  Maria  quae  f  uerat  mater  lesu  et  fratribus 
eius.  15et  in  diebus  illis  exurrexit  Petrus  in  medio  discentium,  et  dixit 
— fuit  autem  turba  in  uno  hominum  quasi  cxx  : — 16uiri  fratres,  oportet 
adinpleri  scripturam  istam,  quam  praedixit  Spiritus  Sanctus  ore  sancti 
Dauid  de  luda,  qui  fuit  deductor  illorum  qui  comprehenderunt  lesum, 
17quoniam  adnumeratus  erat  inter  nos,  qui  habuit  sortem  huius 
ministerii.  1}lhic  igitur  possedit  agrum  de  mercede  iniustitiae  suae, 
et  collum  sibi  alligauit  et  deiectus  in  faciem  diruptus  est  medius  et 
effusa  sunt  omnia  uiscera  eius.  19quod  et  cognitum  fact um  est  omnibus 
qui  inhabitabant  Hierosolymam,  ita  ut  uocaretur  ager  ille  ipsorum 
lingua  Acheldemach,  id  est  ager  sanguinis.  20scriptum  est  euim  in 
libro  Psalmorum  :  Fiat  uilla  eius  deserta,  et  non  sit  qui  inhabitet  in 
ea,  et  episcopatum  eius  accipiat  alter.  21  oportet  itaque  ex  his  uiris  qui 
conuenerurit  nobiscum  in  omni  tempore  quo  introiuit  super  nos  et 
excessit  Dominus  lesus  Christus,  22incipiens  a  baptismo  lohannis  usque 
in  ilium  diem  quo  adsumptus  est  a  nobis,  testem  resurrectionis  eius 
nobiscum  esse.  23et  statuit  duos,  Joseph  qui  uocabatur  Barsabas  qui  et 
Justus,  et  Matthiam.  ^et  precatus  dixit :  Tu  Domine  cordis  omnium 
intellector,  ostende  ex  his  duobus  quern  elegisti  25ad  suscipiendum  locum 
huius  ministerii  et  adnuntiationis,  a  qua  excessit  Judas  ambulare  in 
locum  suum.  26et  dederunt  sortes  suas,  et  cecidit  sors  super  Matthiam, 
et  simul  deputatus  est  cum  undecim  apostolis  duodecimus.  et  cum 
legisset,  dixit :  Audiuimus  quis  ordinatus  est  in  locum  Judae  traditoris... 
Et  cum  dixisset,  legit :  *  In  illo  tempore  quo  subpletus  est  dies  Pentecostes 
fuerunt  omues  simul  in  uno.  2et  factus  est  subito  de  caelo  sonus,  quasi 
ferretur  flatus  uehemens,  et  inpleuit  totam  illam  domum  in  qua  erant 
sederite^.  3et  uisae  sunt  illis  linguae  diuisae  quasi  ignis,  qui  et  insedit 
super  unumquemque  eorum.  4et  inpleti  sunt  omnes  Spiritu  Sancto,  et 

15  discentium]  dicentium  codd.  own,  audientium  Zycha  \  (cf  Cypr  738) 
cxx: — 16uiri  fratres]  centum  uiginti  uiri — fratres  Zycha 

1  In  illo  tempore]  §  Fund  illo]  loco  Fel.  codd.  omn  (legit  in  loco:  tempore, 
quo  Zycha)  simul  in  uno]  eadem  animatione  simul  in  unum  Fund  2  totum 
ilium  locum  Fund  quo  Fund 


S.   AUGUSTINE   AND   FELIX   THE   MANICHEE.  69 

coepertmt  loqui  uariis  linguis  quomodo  Spiritus  dabat  eis  pronuntiare. 
5Hierosolymis  autem  fuerunt  habitatores  ludaei,  homines  ex  omni 
natiorie  quae  est  sub  caelo.  6et  cum  facta  esset  uox,  collecta  est  turba 
et  confusa,  quoniam  audiebat  unnsquisque  suo  sermone  et  suis  linguis 
loquentes  eos.  7stupebant  autem  et  admirabantur  ad  inuicem  dicentes : 
Nonne  omnes  qui  loquuntur  natione  sunt  Galilaei?  8et  quomodo 
agnoscimus  in  illis  sermonem  in  quo  nati  sunius?  9Parthi  Medi  et 
Elamitae,  et  qui  inhabitant  Mesopotamiam  ludaeam  et  Cappadociam, 
Pontum  Asiam  10Frigiam  et  Pamphyliam,  Aegyptum  et  partes  Libyae 
quae  est  ad  Cyrenem,  et  qui  aderant  Romani  nludaeique  et  proselyti, 
Cretenses  et  Arabes,  audiebant  loquentes  illos  suis  linguis  magnalia 
Dei.  et  cum  recitaret,  dixit :  Audisti  nunc  iam  Spiritum  Sanctum  et 
quomodo  sit  missus?  quod  de  me  exegisti  probaui 

4   uariis]  om.  Fund  5    habitantes  Fund  6    confusa]  +  est  Fund 

9  Parthi]  +  et  Fel.  codd  (non  opt)  Medi  et]  om.  et  Fund  ludaeam]  Armeniam 
Fund  10  Frygiam  Fund;  Phrigiamque  Fel. cod,  Phrygiam  Fel. cod  Zycha 

partes  Libyae]  regiones  Africae  Fund  aduenerant  Fund  11  ludaeique  et 

proselyti]  et  ludaei  incolae  et  Fund  Dei]  +  12stupebant  autem  et  haesitabant 

ob  id  quod  factum  est  dicentes  quidnam  hoc  uult  esse?  13alii  autem  inridebant 
dicentes :  Hi  musto  omnes  onerati  sunt  Fund 

The  close  agreement  of  the  text  of  Lc  xxiv  in  this  extract 
with  the  Vulgate,  and  of  Ac  i  and  ii  with  that  of  the  book 
contra  Ep.  Fundamenti  is  obvious  at  a  mere  glance.  Moreover 
the  strongly  'African'  character  of  the  text  of  the  Acts  will  be 
at  once  visible  to  anyone  at  all  familiar  with  the  Cod.  Bobiensis  (k) 
or  the  Fleury  Palimpsest  (h).  I  need  only  mention  contemplari 
(Me  x  27  k,  Ac  iii  3,  5  h),  Eleon  (Me  xi  1,  xiii  3,  xiv  26  k), 
discern  (Mt  viii  21  etc  k,  Ac  vi  5,  ix  10  h),  and  the  repeated  use 
of  quomodo  for  &$<? ;  these  with  many  other  points  of  language  are 
hardly  found  except  in  African  documents1. 

For  the  sake  of  comparison  I  repeat  the  first  four  verses  of  the 
Acts  as  read  in  contra  Felicem,  arranged  parallel  with  the  Vulgate. 
Sixteen  variations  will  be  found  in  four  verses,  some  of  them  of  the 
most  serious  kind  (such  as  the  complete  omission  of  adsumtus  est 
in  Aug  3/3).  On  the  other  hand  in  the  fourteen  verses  of  the  quo 
tation  from  S.  Luke  the  text  of  the  contra  Felicem  only  differs  nine 
times  from  the  Vulgate,  all  nine  being  minor  points. 

1  For  a  more  extended  discussion  see  P.  Corssen,  Der  Cyprianische  Text  der 
Acta  Apostolorum,  Berlin,  1892. 


70 


THE  'ITALA'. 


Aug 
contra  Fel.  (cf.  contr.  ep.  Fund) 

Primum  quidem  sermonem 
feci  de  omnibus,  o  Theophile, 
quae  coepit  lesus  facere  et  docere 
2  in  die  quo  apostolos  elegit 

per  Spiritum  Sanctum  A 

et  praecep^  praedicare 

Euangelium  : 

3quibus  praebuit  se  uiuum 

post  passionem  A 

in  multis  argumentis  dierum 

uisus  eis  A  dies  XL 

et  docens  de  regno  Dei, 

4et  quoitwdo  conuersatus  est  cum 

illis, 

et  praecepit  eis 

ne  discederent  ab  Hierosolyinis, 
sed  sustinerent 
pollicitationem  Patris 
quam  audistis  inquit  ex  ore  meo 


Vulgate 
from  cod.  Amiatinus 

Primum  quidem  sermonem 
feci  de  omnibus,  o  Theophile, 
quae  coepit  lesus  facere  et  docere 
2  usque    in   diem    qua    praecip^ens 

apostoKs 

per  Spiritum  Sanctum 
quos  elegit 
adsumtus  est  A 

3quibus  et  praebuit  se  ipsum  uiuum 
post  passionem  suam 
in  multis  argumentis 
per  dies  XL  apparens  eis 
et  loquens  de  regno  Dei 
4et  conuescens 

praecepit  eis 

ab  Hierosolymis  ne  discederent 

sed  expectarent 

promissionvm  Patris 

quam  audistis  [inquit]  per  os  mewra 


I  do  not  see  any  reason  to  doubt  the  accuracy  of  the  account  of 
the  trial  of  Felix.  In  many  parts  the  work  reads  like  the  transcript 
of  a  shorthand  report,  e.g.  contra  Fel  ii  14  (Zycha,  p.  843), 

AUG.  dixit :  Anathemandus  est  error,  qui  dicit  corruptibilem  Deum, 
an  non  est  anathemandus  1 

FEL.  dixit :  Iterum  die. 

AUG.  dixit :  Anathemandus  est  error,  qui  dicit  corruptibilem  Deum, 
an  non  est  anathemandus  1 

And  again,  a  little  lower  down, 

FEL.  dixit :  Non  intellexi,  quod  dixisti. 

Unless  this  is  mere  literary  fraud,  the  text  of  contra  Felicem 
must  rest  on  mechanical  reporting ;  if  so,  the  probability  is  all  the 
stronger  that  the  words  of  the  Biblical  text  of  Lc  xxiv,  and  of 
Ac  i  and  ii,  were  taken  down  as  they  were  read  out  of  the  codices. 


S.    AUGUSTINE   AND   FELIX   THE   MANICHEE.  71 

This  agrees  too  with  what  S.  Augustine  himself  says  of  the  book 
in  Retr  ii  8 :  "  Gesta  sunt  ecclesiastica,  sed  inter  meos  libros 
computantur."  The  MS  tradition  of  the  work  appears  to  be  fairly 
good,  though  all  known  copies  are  somewhat  late  and  belong  to  a 
single  family.  Zycha's  oldest  MS  is  of  the  12th  century.  In 
Ac  i  15,  where  all  Zycha's  MSS  have  dicentium  for  discentium,  the 
MS  of  contra  Felicem  in  the  Cambridge  University  Library  (Ii.  in.  2) 
has  the  further  corruption  docentium.  The  parallel  quotation  in 
contra  Ep.  Fundamenti  rests  upon  much  more  ancient  MS  authority, 
and  contains  on  the  whole  more  primitive  readings.  This  is  espe 
cially  the  case  from  Ac  ii  9  onwards. 

The  extract  I  have  given  from  the  contra  Felicem  is  thus  doubly 
valuable  to  the  textual  critic.  On  the  one  hand  it  affords  one 
of  the  clearest  proofs  of  S.  Augustine's  use  of  the  Vulgate  Gospels 
at  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century,  and  on  the  other  it  gives  us 
a  continuous  text  of  the  Old  African  version  of  the  greater  part 
of  the  first  two  chapters  of  the  Acts,  a  section  altogether  wanting 
in  the  Fleury  MS,  the  first  fragment  of  which  begins  at  Ac  iii  2. 
A  quotation  so  long  and  so  curious  as  that  of  Ac  i  and  ii  in  the 
contra  Felicem  has  not  of  course  remained  unnoticed,  the  most 
satisfactory  investigation  of  it  being  Corssen's  tract  Der  Cyprianisclie 
Text  der  Acta  Apostolorum  noticed  above.  Corssen  rightly  brings 
out  its  thoroughly  Cyprianic  character,  and  notices  that  the 
quotation  from  S.  Luke  which  precedes  it  "  comes  quite  close  to 
the  Vulgate  "  (p.  25),  but  he  only  uses  this  circumstance  to  dis 
prove  Ziegler's  assertion  that  S.  Augustine  always  quotes  from  a 
single  form  of  text.  He  does  not  apparently  notice  that  S.  Augustine, 
in  changing  from  the  Vulgate  Gospels  to  what  strikes  us  as  an 
ancient  '  African '  text  of  the  Acts,  is  still  consistent  with  himself. 
With  Ziegler  I  recognise  that  S.  Augustine,  like  S.  Cyprian, 
habitually  used  a  single  text,  at  least  from  about  400  AD  onwards ; 
but  this  text,  unlike  S.  Cyprian's,  is  of  a  different  character  in 
different  books  of  the  New  Testament. 


NOTE  II. 

The  Gospel  text  in  Aug.  de  Consensu  Euangelistarum. 

Notwithstanding  Sabatier's  explicit  judgment,  quoted  above 
on  p.  59,  the  proofs  in  this  Note  that  the  Gospel  text  in  the  de 
Consensu  was  taken  by  S.  Augustine  himself  from  the  Vulgate 
may  not  be  altogether  superfluous.  I  have  used  the  following 
additional  abbreviations : 

vg  =  Wordsworth  and  White's  text  of  the  Vulgate, 
vg.  cl  =  the  Clementine  text  of  the  Vulgate, 
Aug.  com  =  text  of  De  Consensu  Euangelistarum. 

Single  MSS  of  the  Vulgate  are  cited  by  Wordsworth  and 
White's  notation. 

The  references  to  Aug.  cons  are  by  the  smaller  chapters  of 
the  Paris  reprint  of  the  Benedictine  edition  (1836—1839). 

1.  The  quotations  have  not  been  assimilated  wholesale  to  the 
Vulgate  in  the  MS  transmission  of  Aug.  cons. 

This  appears  from  e.g.  Aug.  cons  i  44  (=Esai  ii  5 — 21);  i  47 
(=Esai  lii  13— liv  5);  iv  9  (-Ac  i  1,  2);  iii  84  (-Ac  x  41); 
iii  70  (=  1  Cor  xv  3 — 8).  In  all  these  passages  the  text  differs 
greatly  from  the  Vulgate. 

2.  The  Gospel  quotations  in  Aug.  cons  as  they  stand,  both  long 
and  short,  agree  so  closely  with  the  Vulgate  as  to  render  it  certain 
that  they  were  derived  from  it. 

a.  The  actual  amount  of  difference  between  Aug.  cons  and 
the  text  of  Wordsworth  and  White  hardly  comes  up  to  one  varia- 


AUG.   DE   CONSENSU.  73 

tion  in  three  verses,  the  most  trifling  variations  (except  spelling) 
being  included. 

An  example,  chosen  at  random,  exhibiting  the  mutual  relations 
of  Aug.  cons,  the  Vulgate  and /will  make  this  clear.  As  hitherto 
the  text  of  f  has  been  supposed  to  represent  the  basis  not  only  of 
the  Vulgate  but  also  of  Aug,  I  give  it  in  full  with  variants  of  vg 
and  Aug  (cons  iii  46)  below. 

Joh  xix  4 — 16  from  cod.  Brixianus  (f) 

(Italics  mark  the  readings  where  vg  and  Aug  agree  against  f). 

4exiuit  iterum  pilatus  foras.  et  dixit  eis.  ecce  adduce  uobis  eurn 
foras.  ut  sciatis  quia  non  inuenio  ullam  causam  in  eo.  5exiit  ergo 
iesus  foras.  habens  spineam  coronam  et  tunicam  purpuream.  et  dixit 
eis.  ecce  homo.  6cum  ergo  uidissent  eum  principes  sacerdotum  et 
ministri  eorum.  exclamauerunt  dicentes.  crucifige  crucifige  eum.  dicit 
eis  pilatus  accipite  eum  uos.  et  crucifigite  ego  enim.  non  inuenio  in 
eo  causam.  7  respondent  iudaei.  nos  legem  habemus.  et  secundum 
legem.  debet  mori.  quia  filium  dei  se  fecit.  8cum  ergo  audisset 
pilatus  hoc  uerbum.  magis  timuit.  9et  introiuit  iterum  in  praetorio. 
et  ait  ad  iesum.  unde  es  tu.  iesus  autem  responsum  non  dedit  ei. 
10 dicit  ergo  ei  pilatus.  mihi  non  loqueris.  nescis  quia  potestatem 
habeo  crucifigere  te.  et  potestatem  habeo  dimittere  te.  nrespondit 
iesus.  non  haberes  in  me  ullam  potestatem.  nisi  tibi  data  fuisset  de- 
super,  propterea.  qui  me  tibi  tradidit.  mains  peccatum  habet.  I2et 
exinde  quaerebat  pilatus  dimittere  eum.  iudaei  autem  clamabant 
dicentes  si  hunc  dimiseris.  non  es  amicus  caesaris.  omnis  enim  qui 
se  regem  facit.  contradicit  caesari.  13  pilatus  autem  his  uerbis  auditis. 
adduxit  foras  iesum.  et  sedit  pro  tribunali  in  locum  qui  dicitur  litho- 

Variants  of  vg  and  Aug.     4  exiit  vg  Aug  dicit  vg  Aug  eum  uobis  Aug 

cognoscatis  vg  Aug  in  eo  nullam  causam  inuenio  vg  Aug  5  foras]  om.  vg  Aug 
habens]  portans  vg  Aug  tun.  pur.]  purpureum  uestimentum  vg  Aug  dicit 

vg  Aug  6  pr.  sac.]  pontifices  vg  Aug  eorum]  om.  vg  Aug  clamabant 

vg  Aug  eum]  om.  vg  (sic)  Aug  7  resp.]  +  ei  vg  Aug  8  hunc  sermonem 

vg  Aug  9   ingressus  est  praetorium  iterum  vg  Aug  ait]  dicit  vg  Aug 

11  in  me  u.  pot.]  pot.  aduersum  me  ullam  vg  Aug  (aduersus  Aug®*)  data  fuisset] 
esset  datum  vg,  datum  esset  Aug  tradidit  me  tibi  vg  Aug  12  et]  om.  vg  Aug 
pilatus  quaerebat  Aug  dimittis  vg  Aug  enim]  om.  vg  Aug  13  autem] 

ergo  vg  Aug  cum  audisset  hos  sermones  vg  Aug  in  loco  Augeii  litho- 

strotos  Augod,  lithostrotus  vg  (sic) 


74  THE    'ITALA3. 

stratus,  hebraice  autem  gennesar.  14erat  autem  parasceue  paschae. 
bora  quasi  sexta.  et  dixit  iudaeis.  ecce  rex  uester.  15illi  autem 
exclamauerunt.  tolle.  tolle.  crucifige  eum.  dixit  eis  pilatus.  regem 
uestrum  crucifigam.  responderunt  principes  sacerdotum.  non  habemus 
regem  nisi  caesarem.  16tunc  ergo.  tradidit  eis  ilium.  ut  cruci- 
figeretur. 

13  gabbatha  vg  Aug  14  dicit  vg  Aug  (dicit  ergo  Aug,  taking  up  the  Gospel 

narrative  after  some  remarks)  15  clamabant  vg  Aug  pr.  sac.]  pontifices 

vg  Aug 

Here  then  in  13  verses  Augustine  goes  with  the  best  text  of 
the  Vulgate  against  /  26  times,  against  both  /  and  vg  three  (or 
four)  times,  with  /  against  vg  not  at  all !  And  no  known  purely 
Old  Latin  MS  is  so  near  to  vg  as/. 

fi.  The  coincidences  of  Aug.  cons  with  vg  include  many 
readings  and  renderings  found  in  no  Old  Latin  authority — 
readings  therefore  which  probably  originated  with  S.  Jerome. 

Examples  are : — 

Aug.  cons  ii  17  sciscitabatur  =  Mt  ii  4  vg  (=  eTrwflaWo) ;  but 
quaes[iu~\it,  requisiuit,  interrogabat  lat.  vt 

Aug.  cons  ii  138  in  sermone  meo  =  Joh  viii  31  vg ;  but  in  uerbo  meo 
lat.  vt,  incl  Aug.  Joh  41 

Aug.  cons  ii  70  eiciat  =  Mt  ix  38  vg.  codd.  opt  (=  eK/JaXfl) ;  but  mittat 
lat.  vt-vg.c£ 

The  last  is  an  especially  noteworthy  case,  as  any  text  to 
which  the  MSS  of  Aug.  cons  would  be  likely  to  be  conformed  in 
later  times  would  almost  certainly  have  mittat. 

7.  The  differences  between  Aug.  cons  and  the  text  of 
Wordsworth  and  White  are  mostly  minutiae,  and  in  these  cases 
Aug.  cons  generally  has  support  from  some  MSS  of  the  Vulgate, 
i.e.  the  variations  do  not  go  beyond  the  variations  actually  found 
in  MSS  of  the  Vulgate  itself. 

Examples : — 

Aug.  cons  iii  27  (Joh  xviii  28)  ad  Caipham  for  a  Caiapha.  Our 
knowledge  of  the  text  of  Aug.  cons  is  not  exact  enough  to  determine 
the  spelling  of  the  proper  name,  but  ad  for  a  is  expressly  attested  by 
the  MSS  and  is  required  by  the  context.  Among  MSS  of  the  Vulgate  ad 


AUG.    DE   CONSENSU.  75 

Caipham  (Caiapha,  Caifan,  etc)  is  read  by  Wordsworth's  MI8T  CT  ®H 
SOXZ*  BM:SP  DE  K  W  as  well  as  e  a  cfffaur  gat, 

Aug.  cons  iii  28  (Mt  xxvii  9)  filii  Israel  for  a  filiis  Isr.  filii 
israhel  (or  filii  srael  etc,  as/)  is  also  read  by  C(T)  S>msDLQ(R*)  as  well 
asG/ 

Aug.  cons  ii  45  codd  (Lc  vi  17)  maritima  tyri  for  maritima  et  tyri ; 
'maritima  tyri'  is  read  by  H*®P  and  acefffqr  (hiat  b),  *  mariti- 
maetyri '  is  read  by  MG. 

3.  The  few  serious  variations  of  Aug.  cons  from  the  Vulgate 
are  very  seldom  Old  Latin  readings. 

In  Aug.  cons  ii  71  there  is  a  short  quotation  of  Joh  v  29  from 
the  O.  L.,  while  in  iv  6  Mt  xxv  45  is  cited  from  memory  with  the 
unsupported  variant  quando  for  quamdiu,  and  in  iii  86  and  iv  20 
in  the  peroration  of  the  books  we  have  Joh  xiv  21  with  the  O.  L. 
ostendam  for  manifestabo.  But  these  stand  almost  alone,  unless  we 
add  the  variations  of  Ac  i  1,  2  in  Aug.  cons  iv  9,  which  seems  to  be 
a  quotation  from  memory  of  the  African  text  as  found  e.g.  in  contr. 
Fel  804.  Again,  the  readings  regnum  euangelii  for  euangelii 
regnum  (Aug.  cons  ii  70  =  Mt  ix  35)  and  gloria  sua  for  gloria  patris 
sui  (Aug.  cons  ii  111  =  Me  viii  38)  are  absolutely  unsupported  by 
any  known  authority,  and  are  most  probably  due  to  S.  Augustine 
himself.  That  he  was  now  and  then  capable  of  a  simple  slip  is 
shewn  by  his  substitution  of  Barnabas  for  Silas  in  an  allusion  to 
Ac  xvi  25  (Aug.  Joh  113). 

There  are  two  passages  where  S.  Augustine  expressly  quotes  a 
Gospel  by  name  for  a  reading  which  it  is  hard  to  believe  was 
anything  more  than  a  mere  blunder  in  the  MS  before  him.  These 
two  passages  in  fact  form  the  only  argument  for  supposing  that  the 
text  S.  Augustine  took  as  the  basis  for  the  De  consensu  was  ori 
ginally  different  from  that  of  the  Vulgate. 

In  Aug.  cons  ii  26  we  read : — "  ille  uero  baptizabit  uos  Spiritu 
"  Sancto.  De  baptismo  autem  hoc  [Ev.  sc.  Marci]  ab  utroque 
"[distat],  quia  non  dixit  et  igni  sed  tantum  in  Spiritu  Sancto. 
u  Sicut  enim  Mt  ita  et  Lc  dixit  et  eodem  ordirie  Ipse  uos  baptizabit 
"  in  Spiritu  et  igni,  nisi  quod  Lc  non  addidit  Sancto,  sicut  Mt  dixit 
"in  Spiritu  Sancto  et  igni."  All  these  quotations  agree  literally 
with  the  Vulgate  except  for  the  omission  of  Sancto  in  Lc  iii  16,  a 


76  THE  'ITALA'. 

reading  for  which  there  is  some  faint  Greek  evidence,  but  the  only 
Latin  evidence  which  is  quoted  for  it  is  a  doubtful  allusion  in  Tert. 
de  Bapt  §10.  Is  it  not  a  simpler  hypothesis  to  suppose  that  the 
word  was  accidentally  omitted  in  S.  Augustine's  codex  ?  We  know 
at  least  from  Retr  ii  12  that  S.  Augustine  in  Quaest.  Ev  i  27  had 
been  deluded  into  unnecessary  subtleties  by  the  error  of  the  codex 
he  was  then  using,  which  read  duobus  instead  of  duodecim  in 
Mt  xx  171.  It  is  worth  adding,  lest  it  should  be  thought  that  S. 
Augustine's  express  mention  of  readings  usually  shew  variation 
from  the  Vulgate,  that  in  this  very  passage  (Aug.  cons  ii  26)  he 
expressly  says  that  procumbens  is  found  in  Me  i  7  and  that  in 
poenitentiam  is  not  added  in  Lc  iii  16.  This  is  true  of  the  text  of 
Wordsworth  and  White  in  each  place,  but  the  exact  contrary  is  the 
case  in  every  extant  Old  Latin  text  except  /,  which  however  differs 
verbally  in  some  other  respects  in  both  passages.  Thus  but  for  the 
single  omission  of  Sancto  in  Lc  iii  16  Aug  is  here  using  a  text 
distinctively  Vulgate  in  character. 

Again  in  Aug.  cons  iii  25  we  read :  "  lam  uero  illud  quod  Mt  ipsi 
"  Petro  dictum  fuisse  asserit  Vere  et  tu  ex  illis  eo,  nam  et  loquela  tua 
"manifestum  tefaciet  (Mt  xxvi  73) ;  sicut  loh  eidem  Petro  dictum 
"  asseuerat  "  Nonne  ego  te  uidi  in  horto  cum  illo  ?  (Joh  xviii  26) ; 
"Me  autem  inter  se  illos  de  Petro  locutos  dicit  Vere  ex  illis  est, 
"  nam  et  Galilaeus  est  (cf  Me  xiv  70) ;  sicut  et  Lc  non  Petro  sed 
"de  Petro  dicit  Alius  quidam  affirmabat  dicens,  Vere  et  hie  cum 
"illo  emt,  nam  et  Galilaeus  est  (Lc  xxii  59)...".  The  true  text  of 
Me  xiv  70  as  witnessed  by  every  other  authority  Greek  and  Latin, 
including  Aug  himself  at  the  beginning  of  the  section,  has  Petro  for 
de  Petro  and  es  for  est  in  each  place,  thereby  rendering  the  remark 
quoted  above  inaccurate.  Aug  seems  in  fact  to  confuse  this  remark 
with  that  in  the  previous  verse  (Me  xiv  69),  where  the  maid  says 
of  Peter  Hie  ex  illis  est.  Those  who  have  occasion  to  work  at 
the  diction  of  the  parallel  narratives  of  the  Synoptists  will  riot 
wonder  at  occasional  confusions  of  this  kind  in  the  most  careful 
writer. 

I  have  treated  these  two  passages  more  fully,  because  they  are 

1  The  present  writer  has  in  his  possession  a  Vulgate  Bible  of  the  14th  cent, 
which  actually  agrees  with  Aug  in  omitting  sco  here  ;  the  MS  has  elsewhere  several 
readings  of  an  interesting  type,  but  this  is  no  doubt  a  mere  blunder. 


AUG.   DE   CONSENSU.  77 

I  believe  the  only  places  where  even  a  prima  facie  case  can  be 
raised  against  the  hypothesis,  that  S.  Augustine  in  the  De 
consensu  was  working  on  a  MS  of  the  Vulgate1. 


The  references  to  Various  Readings  in  the  De  Consensu. 

In  several  places  S.  Augustine  gives  various  readings  found  in 
'  some  codices '.  This  is  his  usual  way  of  indicating  an  Old  Latin 
reading  as  distinct  from  the  Vulgate. 

Aug.  cons  ii  31  nonnulli  codices  habent  sec.  Lucam  (iii  22)...Filius 
meus  es  tu,  ego  hodie  genui  te  \  quamquam  in  antiquioribus  codicibus 
graecis  non  inueniri  perhibeatur. 

Aug.  cons  ii  70  In  nominibus...discipulorum  Lucas... a  Mt  (x  3) 
non  discrepat,  nisi  in  nomine  ludae  lacobi  quern  Mt  '  Thaddaeum ' 
appellat ;  nonnulli  autem  codices  habent  '  Lebdaeum  '.2 

Aug.  cons  ii  106  '  Dalmanutha ',  quod  in  quibusdam  codicibus 
legitur  (Me  viii  10),  non  dixit  Mt,  sed  '  Magedan ' . . .  Nam  plerique 
codices  non  habent  etiam  sec.  Me  nisi  *  Magedan  '. 

(Aug.  cons  ii  128  codices  ecclesiastici  interpretationis :  i.e.  of  Zech 
ix  9  LXX.) 

Aug.  cons  iii  29  Si  quis  autem  rnoueter  quod  hoc  testimonium  non 
inuenitur  in  Scriptura  Hieremiae  prophetae...primo  nouerit  quod  non 
omnes  codices  Euangeliorum  habere  quod  per  Hieremiam  dictum  sit... 
sed  tantum  per  prophetam  dicentem...  Sed  utatur  ista  defensione  cui 
placet ;  mihi  autem  cur  non  placet  haec  causa  est,  quia  et  plures  codices 
habent  Hieremiae  nomen,  et  qui  diligentius  in  graecis  exemplaribus 
Euangelium  considerauerunt  in  antiquioribus  graecis  ita  se  perhibent 
inuenisse cur  autem  de  nonnullis  codicibus  tolleretur,  etc. 

1  Numerical  results  of  a  collation  of  Aug.  cons  (C)  and  Wordsworth's  Vulgate  (W) 
with  cod.  Brixianus  (/)  and  with  cod.  Monacensis  (q)  in  Mt  i,  ii  (including  stray 
quotations  up  to  Aug.  cons  ii  13)  and  Mt  xxvi  1 — 26  [63  verses  in  all] : 

CW//  68  CW/2  79 

C//W  9  Cg/W  7 

C//W  11  C/?W  12 

C///W  2  C/0/W  3 

90  101 

2  Cf.  the  early  correction  iebdaeus  Mt  x  3  k,  where  the  first  hand  had  written 
iebbaeus.     The  Benedictine  editors  of  Aug  read  Lebbaeum  with  (?  some)  MSS. 


78  THE  'ITALA'. 

The  MS  authorities  for  the  four  readings  are  as  follows  : 

ii  31     nonnulli  codd.=Dd     a  b  cff*  I  r    Tyc  Faust  (not  contradicted  by 
Aug.  contra  Faust)  Hils  luv     [not  e,f  q  vg] 

ii  70     nonnulli  codd.  =  Dd     k     ['  lud.  Zelotes'      a  b  h  q  gat  GE;  /-S^1; 
'  Thaddacus '  vg] 

ii  106  quibusdam  codd.  =/  q  vg  and  Aug 

plerique  codd.  =  Dd    k    abcffir 

iii  29     non  omnes  codd.  and  nonnullis  codd.  =  a  b     [not  d  vg;  k  and  e  are 
not  extant  here] 


NOTE. 

If,  as  I  have  attempted  to  shew,  S.  Augustine  accepted  the  Vulgate 
for  his  text  of  the  Gospels,  the  whole  of  the  N.T.  as  used  by  him  is 
now  represented  in  extant  MSB.  It  has  long  been  recognised  that  the 
Freising  fragments,  published  by  Ziegler  and  usually  called  r,  give 
S.  Augustine's  text  of  the  Pauline  Epistles;  his  text  in  the  Apocalypse, 
Acts,  and  Catholic  Epistles  is  given  by  the  Fleury  Palimpsest,  while  in 
the  Apocalypse  we  have  the  additional  evidence  of  Primasius.  Hitherto 
it  has  appeared  surprising  that  none  of  our  numerous  Old  Latin  Codices 
of  the  Gospels  should  correspond  to  S.  Augustine's  'Itala',  seeing  that 
the  Augustinian  text  was  so  fully  represented  in  our  scanty  list  of  Old 
Latin  authorities  for  the  rest  of  the  N.T.  But  now  the  matter  is  clear 
enough.  No  'Old  Latin'  MS  could  give  the  Augustinian  text  of  the 
Gospels,  because  the  Augustinian  text  of  the  Gospels  is  the  Vulgate. 


APPENDIX. 
THE   S.   GALLEN   FRAGMENT   OF  JEREMIAH. 


THE  S.  GALLEN  FRAGMENT  OF  JEREMIAH. 


Cod.  Sangallensis  No.  912  is  a  palimpsest,  the  upper  writing 
being  a  Latin  Glossary  of  the  9th  cent.  Nearly  all  the  leaves  have 
older  writing  underneath,  very  faint  and  brown,  and  quite  illegible 
except  where  the  pages  have  been  stained  with  a  blue  reagent. 
Pp.  303,  304,  309,  310,  25,  26,  31,  32  (and  no  others)  are  taken 
from  an  Old  Latin  MS  of  Jeremiah,  making  two  nearly  complete 
pages  of  the  older  writing.  This,  which  will  be  cited  here  as  g, 
appears  to  date  from  the  fifth  century  at  least1.  There  are  no 
signatures  preserved,  so  that  no  idea  can  be  formed  of  the  original 
contents  of  the  book.  There  are  fifteen  lines  in  a  column,  and 
only  one  column  in  a  page,  making  the  original  page  nearly  a 
square  of  about  8  in. — that  is,  about  the  shape  and  size  of  the 
Bobbio  Gospels  (&).  The  bodkin  lines  are  3|J  in.  apart  for  the 
columns,  f  in.  for  the  lines.  The  length  of  the  lines  varies  from  3| 
to  4J  in.,  mostly  however  they  just  reach  4  inches ;  the  letters  are 
T3g-  in.  high.  The  writing  very  much  resembles  the  Old  Latin 
fragments  of  the  Gospels  from  the  same  Library,  usually  cited 
as  n  (in  Cod.  Sangall.  1394,  torn,  i),  but  the  rather  peculiar  'a' 
found  in  n  does  not  occur. 

The  fragments  of  Jeremiah  were  edited  by  Tischeridorf  in  the 
second  edition  (1861)  of  Monumenta  Sacra  et  Prof  ana.  The  MS, 
as  Tischendorf  says,  is  hard  to  read  ;  but  by  the  aid  of  a  magnifying 
glass  and  a  good  light  I  have  been  able  to  read  some  words  hitherto 
undeciphered.  The  mutilated  fragments  of  Hier  xvii  are  less 
clear  than  those  of  Hier  xxix  (49) :  I  doubt  if  they  would  come 
out  better  in  a  photograph.  It  will  be  seen  that  in  Hier  xvii  a 
third  of  each  line  has  been  altogether  cut  away. 

1  The  regular  use  of  '  dms '  and  '  dine '  (not  '  dns '  and  '  dne ')  makes  in  favour 
of  this  early  date. 

B.  6 


Gall  912 
25 


32 


82  THE   S.   GALLEN 

cumuese 


r  n  i  r       ^ 

eT5ecu  Niduon  p  jiucTuonco 

u  en  i  e  d 


d  i  on  i  d  i  o  d  i  e  _F,  u  en  e  i  u  5  d  e  j^  e 

liNique  NTeu  On  6TU5q«lNNlO 


ie  NTlA 

15  illiusiSTji^el- 

(fol   1  r) 


2     Littera  'f  in  fructwn  non  liquet:   habet  Tisch.  3     '  eorum  red'  et 

5     «  quos  non  pe  ' :  non  legit  Tisch.  6     « pariat ' :  rapiat  Tisch.  7     '  a ' 

in  adquirens  legit  Tisch.,  sed  non  exstat  in  membranis.  10     '  m '  in  eum  et 

11     's'  ad  fin.  non  liquent:   habet  Tisch.  12     'r'  et  's'  in  uirtutis  non 

liquent:  virtute  Tisch.  13    ' etenim  sane '  :  et  erit  —   —Tisch.  14     'tie 

in  patientia,  et  partes  '  n  '  et  '  t '  2°,  non  satis  liquent :  habet  Tisch. 


PALIMPSEST   OF   JEREMIAH.  83 

dmeocnNieSquiTe  dejieliN    g°a?19s12 

-i       P-26 

PUN  (J^vNl 


UNJTPON 
TecnuiTAedcrn.cu  j^xcnedcne 


_K.iTXScneA..eccehn  .  d  i  c  UN  T 

ucndmT 


hocn 


15 

(fal.  1  y) 


1     '  dme '  sine  linea  superior! :  habet  Tisch.  8     '  hii.'    sic,  cum  puncto  ad 

finem  lineae ;  om.  punctum  Tisch.  14    « et ' :  om.  Tisch.  15    post  omnia. 

pars  litterae  '  n '  adhuc  uisibilis  est. 

6—2 


84  THE    S.   OALLEN 


CO.LS. 

Gall  912 

eTTuducncnuNidXTXuidej.  1  5 
NO 


.  e  T  o  en  NJ  e  S 


u  d  ru  i  \  d  end 


xs  u  ^  c  i  T  e  i  M 


(fol   2r) 


5     'et':   om.  Tisch.  14    pupillum  Tisch.,  sed  littera  '  p '  2°  non  satis 

liquet.  15    lineola  super  '  u '  in  contemptu  non  satis  liquet,  et  om.  Tisch. 

Debebat  esse  digne-contemptum  (evKara<f>p6vqTov). 


PALIMPSEST   OF   JEREMIAH.  85 

i  N  r  e  _K  h  om  i  N  e  S  I  u  S  u  s  T  u-S  ^  s 

(jTclll    i/l 

p.  80S 

5  I  U  I  T  h  O  C  T  I  E.  I  S  T  U  I  T  I 


i  S  T  u  i  h  \  B  i  T  \  u  i  T 
i  NC^vueji  NiSjerji^ji  ucn 
5  c  o  N  j«  K.  eheNdiTcnuMiTio 
NJ  e  en  c  o  1  1  1  s  e  x  c  el5ieT  q  u  i  x 


ClO.OCnNl5qXJlT  Jl  MM5  16T 


•5  -  T 

(fol.  2  v) 


1     '  tu~s '  sic :  cf.  '  ill~m  '  Mt  xiv  3  e  7     '  nidu '  apographum  meum,  f or- 

tasse  per  errorem :  nidu  Tisch.  12,  14,  15  litterae  '  r ',  *  s ',  et  '  t '  ad  fin. 

abscissae  sunt.  Quae  suppleui  ad  initia  et  fines  linearum  abscissarum  in 

notis  criticis  defenduntur. 


86  THE  S.   GALLEN 

Comparison  of  the  Fragments  with  other  texts  of  the  LXX. 

The  verses  contained  in  the  S.  Gallen  fragments  are  extant  in 
no  other  Old  Latin  MS.  Under  these  circumstances  it  seemed  best 
to  compare  them  with  the  Cambridge  text  of  B,  and  to  bring 
together  such  Latin  parallels  as  were  to  be  found,  together  with 
those  variations  of  Greek  MSS  from  Holmes  and  Parsons  which 
might  find  an  echo  in  a  Latin  text.  It  was  necessary  to  give 
readings  of  certain  secondary  Greek  MSS,  even  where  they  differed 
both  from  the  S.  Gallen  Palimpsest  and  from  BtfA  etc.,  that  the 
importance  of  their  occasional  points  of  contact  with  the  Palimpsest 
might  not  be  overrated.  This  is  the  case  for  example  with 
Parsons'  106. 

LXX  (B)  Fragm.  S.  Gall. 

10  —  rov  oovvai 

eKtto-Ta>  Kara  TO.?  68ovs  avrov  Cuique  secundum  uias  eius 

Kai  Kara  rous  Kap-rrovs  TCOV  et  secimdum  yVuctum  co- 

avrov.  gitatiouum  eorum  red- 

dere  eis  •  nclamauit  perdix 

awrjyaycv  a  OVK  congreg&uit  quos  non  pe- 

€T€Kei/'  perit  -  multos  pariat  sibi 

TTotoJi/  TrXovrov  filios  ttdquirens  diuitias 

~  ov  fjLtra  KptVcws,  ev  suas  non  cum  iudicio  in 

vj/xepoji/  avrov  ey/cara-  dimidio  dierum  eius  dere- 

avrov,  Kat  CTT'  eo--  linqueut  eum  et  usq,  in  no- 

avroi)  (.o-rai  a<bouv.  uissimo  suo  erit  stultus. 

is  autem  uirtutis. 


Selected  Greek  variants  from  the  Camb.  LXX  and  Holmes  and  Parsons.     The 
symbol  &  is  used  to  denote  the  MSS  22-36-48-51-96-229-231  or  a  majority  of  them. 

10  avrov  2°]  Ba?bKAQ  Ed.  Rom   (et  MSS   e   sil);   avruv  B*   106  144   Compl  Aid 

11  (rvvrjyayeis]  pr  /cat  ^  TT\OVTOV  avTW  144  Ka.ra.\ei.\}/ovffiv  ^  62  /cot  e?r 

/cat  e7re<rxaTou  41-49-87-90-91-228  ;  om  KCU  62 


From  Sabatier  [add  m  355  for  vcr.  10] 

10  cogitationum]  studiorum  m  Aug  Vig  eorum  reddere  eis]  eius  w  Aug  Vig 

11  cougregauit]  pr.  et  Amblj3  ;  collegit  Philastr         quos]  quae  Aug  Ambzl3  Philastr 
parturiit  Philastr  multos  pariat  sibi  filios]  no  other  authority  adquirens] 

faciens  Aug  Philastr  diu.  suas]  sibi  diuitias  Philastr  iudicio]  sapientia 

Philastr  dimidio]  medio  Philastr  nouissimo  suo]  nouissimis  suis  Aug2j^] 

postremo  Philastr  stultus]  insipiens  Aug2/^  Philastr  12  wit.]  thronus 

uirtutis  (om.  autem)  Amb  ;  sedes  autem  gloriae  Aug 


PALIMPSEST   OF   JEREMIAH. 


87 


LXX  (B) 


ayiao-/>ta 


Kvpie,  TTCIJ/TCS  ot  KaraXtTroVres 


€7rt  T^S  y^s 


on  eyKareXtTroi/  Trrjyyv 

.     14«Wai  /x,e,  Ktyne, 
crwcrov   x€ 


Fragm.  S.  Gall. 
exaltatus  est.     etenim  sanc- 
tificatio  nostra  13pa£ientia 
illius  (?)  Istr&el. 
Dme  omnes  qui  te  derelin- 
querunt  con.i.undantur 
qui  discesserunt  a  terra 
scribantur  in  libro  mortis 


cura  me 


qua 

tern  uitae  drm. 


/cai  a-wOija-ofuu,  on 

fjiov  a-v  et.     15t8ov  avrot  Xeyovcrt 

//.€  IIov  €o-riv  6  Aoyos  Kvpiov  ; 

rw.     16eyw  8e  OUK  eKOTrtWa 

wv  OTTIO-CO  crov,  Kat  vj/xepai/ 


et  saluus  ero.      tu  es  enim(l)cla- 
ritas  mea.      15ecce  hii.     dicunt 
mihi  ubi  est  uerb^m 
ueni  16ego  autem  wow 
rani  subsequens  ^e  e^ 


Selected  Greek  variants.      12  i^w/Aevos]  om  144;    +a?r  apx^s  TOTTOS  106; 
TOTTOS  \  (Qm®  87  sub  %  )  13  ayiao-yuaros  ^  UTTO/AOJ^S  N* 

OVTOL  /cat  ^  ^rot]Q(.-r]v  eyvu  (corr  €70;)  ^^\)vQf\r^<so.v  X* 
ypcKpyTUffav]   Karate  x,vvdr)<rovTcu  .....  ypa^ffovrai  (with  varr)   ^  22  62  198 
e?rt]  a?™  Sca  ^  26  62  198  eyypa^T^ffav  «ca  1^7175]  +  uSaros  62  87  (sub   *) 

14  o-wo-ov  ....  aw^TjcroAiat]  om  A*  vid          <rv  et]  et  <rv  41-91-228  26  106  198  OTI]  om  A 

ffv\  om  A  15  eX^arw]  +  5^  ^  41  62  87  (sub  #)  ;  om  eX^.  49-90 

From  Sabatier  [add  m  355  for  ver.  10] 

12  est]  Aug  Amb  (against  Gk  MBS)  illius  (?)]  om.  ^it^ 

From  Sabatier  [add  m  698  for  ver.  13.      The  text  of  Contr.  Fulg.  Donatistam  is 
quoted  from  B.M.  Addl.  16896,  saec.  xi] 

13  omnes  qui  derelinqunt  te  confundantur,  recedentes  a  te  scribantur  in  libro 
mortis,  quoniam  derelinquerunt  te,  confundantur  recedentes  a  te  fonte  uitae.    Fulg 
MS  (derelinquunt...confundentur...scribentur...  derelinquerunt  te  fontem  uitae  Edd) 
uniuersi  qui  der.  te  confundantur,  recedentes  super  terram  scribantur     Aug.  c. 

adv.  Leg 

Domine,  uniuersi  qui  te  der.  terreantur  ;  conf  .  qui  recesser.  in  terram.  Euer- 
tentur  quoniam  derelinquerunt  fontem  uitae  Dominum  Aug.  Faust,  xiii 

Domine,  omnes  qui  te  derelinquunt  confundantur,  discedentes  a  terra  euertantur, 
qui  derelinquerunt  fontem  uitae  Dominum  m  698 

14  sana  me  Domine  et  sanabor,  saluum  me  fac  et  saluus  ero  Aug  Faust  Amblj9 
(salua  me  Anib*l9  and  De  xlii  Mans)          quoniam  gloriatio  mea  tu  es  Aug         quia 
gloria  mea  tu  es  Amb  15  ubi  est  uerbum  Domini,  ueniat  Amb*h  16  non 
laboraui  sequens  post  te  Aug  4m&a/a           et  diem  hominis  non  concupiui  Aug  Hil 


88 


THE   S.   GALLEN 


LXX  (B) 

xvii  avOpuTTov  OVK  eTreOvfJiTjcra, 

av  ITTLO-TTJ'  TO.  CKTropevo/xera  Sia 

TO)V  ^etXcWf  fJLOV   TTpO 

o~ov  1 


Ots  OVK  TIV 

7Tt€tV  TO   TTOTTJpiOV,    ITTIOV 


a>yu,oo~a,  Xey€i  Kupios,  ort 
cis  afSarov  Kat  ets  6Vet- 
8t(r/xov  Kat  cts  Karapacriv 
co-ry  ei'  /xecra)  avr^?,  Kat  Tracrai 
at  TroXeis  aur^s  eo-ovrai  epry- 


yw,oi  ets  atcuva. 

7jKov<ra  Trapa  Kvptov,  Kat  ayye' 


Kat  Trapayeveo'^e  et? 
avacTTrjTe  ets 


/XOV' 


Tratyvta  crov 


CTOl,        tTtt- 

^Ltta  KapSi'as  trov  Kare 
Tpv/j.a\La.<; 


Fragm.   S.  Gall, 
hominis  non  desideraui 
tu  scis  quae  procec?66aw^  o? 
labiis  meis  et  in  conspectu 
tuo  sunt  omnia  •  17n..  ... 


Lex  bibendi  calicem  biberunt 
et  tu  dum  mundata  uideris 
non  mundaberis  •  14per  me 
enim  iuraui  dicit  dms  .  quia 
nemo  pertransiet  et  in  op- 
probrio  et  in  maledictione 
eris  in  parte  tua  •  et  omnes 
ciuitates  tuae  erunt  deser- 
tae  in  aeternum  •  15auditu 
audiui  a  dino  et  mmtios 
ad  gentes  misit  dicens  con 
gregate  uos  et  uenite  aduer- 
sum  earn  exsurgite  in  pug- 
nam  •  16pu(p)illum  dedi  te  inter 
gentes  dignaecontemptu 

Inter  homines  lusus  tuus 
adquisiuit  hoc  tibi  17stulti- 
tiani  cordis  tui  habitauit 
in  cauernis  petrarum 


Selected  Greek  variants.     16  <rov  2°]  ^iou  A  ecrn]  etcri  106 

13  eTTioi']  Trto^res  CJTLQV  Qmg  sub^   \  62  a^ww^s]  +  OTI  iruav  Triecrai  (with 

variations)  AQ  ^  (Trivovaa  ^)  14  ort  1°]  om  A  ort  ets  aft ea-rj]  OTL  ets  a<pavi- 

(T/J.OV  KO.I  eis  a/3.   Kai....€<rr)  86;    ori  eis  a<f>av.  KO.I  ets  oveidiafj-ov  /cat  eis  a/Saroi'  /cat  cts 
eiriKarapainv  eo"rj  ^  /carapatrtj']  Karapav  XA  41  106  al;  eTTiKarapaaiv  ^  ei' 

fj.€crd)  avrys]  ev  new  ywepei  ai>T7;s  (88)  Syr-Hex  (fj-eprj  88)  ;  Boorop  ev  /xeo*w  yite/jous  airr?;? 
?i  62  15  aTrea-retXej/]  aTreo-retXaj/  62  ;  e^aTrea-retXe  49-90  ets  aur??!']  e?r  aur?;^ 

IJi ;  fv  avrrj  62  ayacrrT/re]  pr  /cat  X  62  ets  TroXe/xoi']  +  e?r  avTT)v  X  62 

16  /u/c/301']  t5ou  /it/cpoi'  AQ  23  X  almult ;  on  t5ou  /A.  62  eu/cara0p.]  pr  /cat  A  49-90  al 

fvexfipT)fffv  ffoi]  evexapHre  aot  TO.VTO.  X  62  17  trayttta]  irafjuav  Q  ;  /cat  77  arista  X  5 

•f)Ta./j.ia  106  Tpu/xaXtaj]  ei*  rpu/aaXtatj  X  62 

There  are  no  quotations  in  Sabatier. 


PALIMPSEST  OF   JEREMIAH.  89 

LXX  (B)  Fragm.  S.  Gall, 

xxix  o-vj/e'Xa/?£v  to-^v  conprehendit  munitio- 

ftovvov  v\j/r]\ov-  on  nem  collis  excelsi  et  quia 

i>\l/(a<r€v  (ocTTrep  aero?  vo<Tcna.v  exaltasti  sicut  aquila  niduw 

avrov,  cKtWev  /ca0eXa>  o-e.  tuum  inde  detraham  te 

18 /cat  eoTat  rf  'iSov/xata  cts  a-  18eritq.  idumea  sine  uesti- 

6  TrapaTropevo/xcvos  gio  •  omnis  qui  transiet 

avVrjv  o-vpter  19a><T7rep  /care-  per  earn  sibilabit  19  sicut  sub- 

Kat  To/xoppa  uersa  est  Sodoma  et  Gomor- 

Kai  at  Trapoi/cot  avr^g,  ra  et  uicinae  eius  ciuitates 

sic  subuertam  te  dicit  dms 
omnipotens  •  non  sedebii 


Selected  Greek  variants.      17  on  v^wvev]  on  ew  v\f/wffeis  A  239  ;  on  eav  v\l/w<rr)s 
Q  ^  62  86  almult ;  on  v\f/<i)<ras  106  alp  auroi;]  eavrov  S  ;  crou  A  ^  62  88  106 

Kade\(d  ere]  +  <f>rjffi  KS  k  62  18  iras]  pr  /cat  Q  crvptei]  e/ccrTTjcrerat  /cat  cruptet 

eTrt  Tracraj/  TT?!/  rX^??!'  aur?;?  Q  *  62  (with  variations)  19  irapotKOi]  irapotKiat  106 

A 


There  are  no  quotations  in  Sabatier. 


List  of  words  and  expressions  found  in  g. 


adquirere  (Troietv)  Hier  xvii  11 

(ey^etpctv,  or  eyx€tpt^etv)  xxix  17 

aeternus — in  aet.  (ets  atwva)  xxix  14 

cauerna  (rpv/u,aXta)  xxix  17 

•  /  i*x  **i/i 

claritas  (Kav^/xa  =  gloria j  xvii  i 

cf.  Hier  xiii  11  h 

cogitatio  (eTriT^Sevjaa)  xvii  10 
=  Hier  xxiii  22  Cypr  ; 
but  meditatio  Hier  xi  18  Cypr 
adfectatio  Hier  xxv  5  Cypr 
studium  Hier  xvii  10  m  Aug 

congregare  (<rway€ii>)  xvii  1 

congregare  se  ((jwayetrvat)  xxix  lo 

curare  (tSo-^at)  xvii  14 

derelinquere  (/caraXetVcu/,  eyKaraXetTrctv)  xvii  11,  13 

desiderare  (tTrt^v/xetv)  xvii  lo 

detrahere  (Ka^atpetv)  xxix  17 


90 


THE   S.   GALLEN 


digue  (=eu  in  compos.) 
diguecontemptus  ( 
discessere  (d<£ioTao-#cu) 
dum  (=  Gk.  part) 

dum  mundata  uideris 

enim  (on) 

excelsus  (vi//r;A.o'g) 

exsurgere  ( 

habitare  in 

lusus  (iraayvia.) 

maledictio 

mundari  (( 

mundatus  uideri  (id) 

munitio  (icr^vs) 

nemo — nemo  pertransiet 

nuntius  (ayyeAos) 

opprobrium 

pugna 

pupillus,  or  pusillus 

-que  (/cat) 

quia  (on) 

saluum  esse  (o*w£< 

sine  (-  dpriv.) 
sine  uestigio 

stultitia 


ajSarov) 


subsequi 
thronus  (Opovos) 
uerbum  (Xoyos) 
uirtus 


xxix  16 
xvii  13 


xxix  13 
(xvii  14)  xxix  14  [see  quia] 
xxix  17 
xxix  15 
xxix  17 
xxix  17 
xxix  14 
xxix  13 
xxix  13 
xxix  17 

xxix  14  [see  sine] 
xxix  15 
xxix  14 
xxix  15 
xxix  16 
xxix  18 

xxix  14,  17  [see  enim] 
xvii  14 

xxix  18  [see  nemo] 

xxix  17 

xvii  11 

xvii  16 

xvii  12 

xvii  15 

xvii  12 


Points  of  special  interest. 

The  most  striking  feature  of  the  S.  Gallen  fragments  (g)  is  the 
number  of  interpolations  not  found  in  any  Greek  MS.  They  are  as 
follows : 

Hier  xvii  10  eorum]  +  redofe?*e  eia. 

1 1  peperit]  +  multos  pariat  sibi  filios 

1 2  thronus]  +  autem  (=  Any) 
exaltatus]  +  est                         (=  Aug  Amb) 


PALIMPSEST   OF   JEREMIAH.  91 

Hier  xvii  1 2  sanctificatio]  pr.  etenim 

13  scribantur]  +  in  libro  mortis  (=  contr.  Fuly.  Don) 
1 6  labiis  meis]  +  et  | 
sunt]  +  omnia      ) 
xxix  15  misit]  +  dicens 

16  adquisiuit]  +  hoc    (but  cf.  the  addition  ofravra.  in  \  etc) 

17  excels!] +  et 

19  uicinae  eius]  +  ciuitates,  sic  subuertam  te 

Of  a  similar  nature  is  the  strange  rendering  of  et?  aftarov  by 
nemo  pertransiet  in  xxix  14. 

There  are  no  Latin  quotations  for  Hier  xxix,  and  not  many  for 
the  verses  of  xvii  found  in  g.  It  is  tantalizing  that  the  Wiirzburg 
Palimpsest  (h)  leaves  off  just  where  g  begins1,  and  that  a  long 
quotation  in  Tyconius  begins  a  verse  after  g  leaves  off. 

On  the  other  hand  there  is  a  compensation  in  the  quotation  of 
Hier  xvii  13  by  the  Donatist  in  the  'contra  Fulgentium  Donatistam'. 
This  interesting  little  work  (Migne  xliii  763),  ascribed  in  the  MSS 
to  S.  Augustine,  mainly  consists  of  a  Dialogue  between  a  Catholic 
and  a  Donatist.  The  Catholic  quotes  predominantly  from  the 
Vulgate,  but  the  Donatist  from  the  Old  Latin.  This  would  seem  to 
shew  that  the  Donatists  held  longer  by  the  old  version,  and  also 
suggests  that  the  Dialogue  is  a  real  one  ;  for,  had  the  dispute  been 
altogether  a  piece  of  literary  fiction,  the  two  disputants  would 
hardly  have  been  introduced  as  quoting  from  different  versions, 
unless  the  one  version  or  the  other  was  to  be  represented  as  being 
more  accurate  or  orthodox.  The  Catholic  does  indeed  correct  his 
opponent  for  quoting  Joh  vii  38  in  the  form  sicut  dicit  Isaias, 
instead  of  sicut  dicit  Scriptura,  but  this  variant  occurs  nowhere 
else,  and  seems  to  be  a  mere  blunder  of  the  Donatist. 

To  return  to  our  text : — in  the  course  of  the  dispute  the 
Donatist  quotes  Hier  xvii  13  with  the  addition  of  in  libro  mortis 
to  scribantur,  just  as  in  g.  Is  not  this  enough  to  found  a  working 
hypothesis — I  do  not  say  more — that  g  has  a  text  such  as  was 
current  among  the  Donatists  of  the  4th  cent.  1 

The  question  is  complicated  by  the  reading  of  m  144  and  Aug. 
contr.  Faust  xiii,  which  have  a  terra  euertentur  (m),  in  terram 

1  g  and  h  are  MSS  of  quite  a  different  size  and  shape,  so  that  g  cannot  be  a  stray 
leaf  of  h. 


92  THE   S.    GALLEN    PALIMPSEST. 

euertentur  (Aug),  which  seems  to  point  to  a  variant  in  the  Greek1. 
If  this  be  really  so,  and  not  a  mere  attempt  to  make  sense  by 
emendation  instead  of  addition,  the  reading  of  g  Fulg  would  seem 
to  be  a  later  correction. 

Another  point  of  interest  in  g  (which  it  shares  with  such 
African  authorities  as  de  Pascka  Oomputus)  is  its  coincidences 
with  B,  especially  the  first  hand.  In  these  few  verses  we  have 

Hier  xvii  10  eorum  g  =  dvrw  B*  106  al        but  avrov  Bcorr«AQA.  etc 

m  Aug 

xxix  16  fjuKpov]  <7  =  BN  but  pr  i8ov  AQ^i  etc 

1 7  et  quia  exaltasti     g  —  on 
vi/^uxras  106 
OTL  vij/uxrtv  BX  copt  but  OTL  eai/  ty.  AQA  etc 

In  the  last  passage  the  softening  of  the  construction  found  in 
g  is  evidently  quite  independent  of  the  later  Greek  reading  found 
in  AQ  etc. 

On  the  other  hand  g  has  one  reading  not  known  in  Greek 
except  as  part  of  a  conflation.  In  xxix  14  g  has  'in  parte  tua' 
corresponding  to  eV  fj,epei  aov,  a  variant  for  eV  /uueo-w  avrfjs.  Here 
'88'  and  Syr-Hex2  have  eV  /JLEO-W  pepei  avrrjs  (pepy  88),  and  in  \ 
we  find  eV  /zeerw  fj^epov^  avrfj*;. 

In  the  Latin  of  g  the  strangest  word  is  dignecontemptum  for 
evKara^povrjTos.  I  have  not  been  able  to  find  a  parallel.  Possibly 
'bene'  was  felt  to  be  unsuitable  for  a  compound  in  a  term  of 
abuse. 

If  I  have  restored  '  [clajritas '  rightly  as  an  equivalent  to 
Kavxn^a,  it  must  probably  be  regarded  as  a  substitute  for  'gloria'. 
Similarly  we  find  several  instances,  even  in  Cyprian,  of  '  sermo ' 
for  '  uerbum '  as  an  equivalent  of  p^a,  e.g.  Esai  xl  8  (Test  III  58, 
de  Hob.  Virg  §  6). 

1  Hier  xvii  13  LXX  <\TTOTHC[-HcrpA4>HTCOCAN 

(Aug)   ATTOTHC|-HCCTpA<t>HTCOCAN 

AVJ^   ^q-i     Syr-Hex. 


ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

1.     On  Micah  v  2  in  Cod.  Weingartensis  (w). 

The  fragmentary  Cod.  Weingartensis,  perhaps  the  best  surviving 
Latin  MS  of  the  Prophets,  has  lost  about  half  the  breadth  of  the  column 
at  Mic  v  2,  so  that  the  verse  runs 

ETTUBE  . . . 
DOMU  ... 
TIONI  . . . 

TA-NU  .  .  . 
MINI  .  .  . 
UTSIS  .  .  . 
IUDA 

What  has  to  be  supplied  is  quite  clear,  except  in  the  second  and 
third  lines.  E.  Ranke,  the  discoverer  and  editor  of  the  MS,  restored 
the  passage  thus :  Et  tu  bethleem  \  domus  habita\tioms  efra\t&-  nura- 

quid  |  minima  es  \  ut  sis  in  milibus     iuda Now  as  the  Greek  of 

Mic  v  2a  is  Kat  o-v,  Bry^Xee/x  OIKOS  'E<£pa#a,  \JMJ\  oAiyooros  el  rov  etvai  eV 
XiXtao-iv  'lovSa,  it  is  evident  that  a  gloss  of  some  sort  has  been  inserted 
in  the  Weingarten  MS  after  'domus',  of  which  the  letters  '-tioni-'  are  a 
survival  and  for  which  Ranke  has  conjectured  '  habitations' .  This 
however  has  no  support,  and  it  is  rather  too  long.  I  venture  to 
substitute  for  it  're/ectionis'. 

In  the  Onomastica  published  by  Lagarde  no  Latin  explanation 
of  Bethlehem  happens  to  be  given,  but  I  have  found  in  an  'Interpreta 
tions  bibliothece'  at  the  end  of  a  15th  cent.  Vulgate  in  my  possession 
the  following  line 

Bethleem  dom'  panis  7  dom'  refectois' 

'Domus  refectionis'  was  therefore  a  recognised  gloss  for  Bethlehem, 
and  the  occurrence  of  this  name  in  the  text  of  the  Bible,  followed 
immediately  by  the  word  'domus',  seems  to  have  led  to  the  insertion  of 
'refectionis'  in  the  text  of  the  Weingarten  MS.  By  substituting 
'refec[tioni]s'  for  the  missing  letters  the  required  space  is  exactly 
filled  up,  and  the  presence  of  the  interpolation  accounted  for. 


94  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

2.     On  the  Interpolation  in  Me  xvi  4  in  Cod.  Bobiensis. 

The  interpolation  in  k  which  describes  the  Light  at  the  Resurrection 
runs  as  follows :  sujbito  .  autem  ad  horam  tertiam  |  tenebrae  diei  factae 
sunt  per  |  totum  orbera  terrae  et  des|cenderunt  de  caelis  angeli  ||  et 
surgent  in  claritate  uiui  di  |  sirnul  ascenderunt  cum  eo  |  et  continue 
lux  facta  est|. 

The  text  is  evidently  not  quite  sound  here.  (1)  It  is  usual  to  read 
'diei  tenebrae'  for  'tenebrae  diei'.  But  transpositions  are  not  common 
in  k,  while  confusions  of  case  and  the  addition  and  dropping  of  letters 
are  extremely  common.  It  is  therefore  better  to  simply  read  with 
Dr  Hort  'die'  for  'diei',  and  to  refer  to  Amos  viii  9  (o-va-Koratrei  CTTI  rrjs 
7175  h  i?/Aep?  T°  </>w?),  a  passage  so  often  quoted  by  the  Fathers  with 
reference  to  the  Passion  that  its  influence  may  be  legitimately  traced  in 
the  wording  of  a  story  of  the  Resurrection. 

(2)  '  Surgent '  is  evidently  wrong.  The  accepted  conjecture  here 
appears  to  be  'surgentes'  (Hort,  Sanday).  But  this  is  open  to  the 
objection  that  in  that  case  the  only  indication  of  our  Lord's  immediate 
Ascension  to  Heaven  from  the  tomb,  which  is  evidently  implied,  would 
have  to  be  gathered  from  the  words  'cum  eo'.  Moreover,  as  Prof. 
Robinson  has  pointed  out  to  me,  'surgere'  is  inappropriate  to  the 
angels.  They  ascended  with  our  Lord,  but  He  alone  rose  from  the 
dead.  It  seems  to  me  that  'surgent'  must  refer  to  Christ;  I  therefore 
conjecture  'surgente',  i.e.  'as  He  arose'. 

For  the  rather  peculiar  construction  thereby  implied — a  participle 
agreeing  with  something  to  follow,  instead  of  an  abl.  abs. — we  may 
compare 

Mt  viii  1  k  :  et  descendentem  de  montem  secuti  sunt  eum  populi  multi 
(  =  KaTa(BdvTos  Se  avrov  OTTO  TOV  opovs  r)KO\ovdr)(rav  avT<p  o^Xot  TroXXoi). 

Here  then 

surgente sirnul  ascenderunt  cum  eo 

seems  to  stand  for 

eycpdevTos  avrov <Tvvave(3r)(rav  aura), 

a  sentence  exactly  similar  in  construction  to  Mt  viii  1.     For  the  rendering  of 
simul  ascender e  cum,  see  Mark  xv  41  k. 


INDEX   OF   PATRISTIC   WORKS 

QUOTED  OB  EEFEKRED  TO. 


S.  AMBROSE 
in  Ps.  37     33 

S.  AUGUSTINE 
contra  serm.  Arrianorum 
35  14 

de  Ciuitate  Dei 
xviii  42,  43      54,  60 

de  Consensu  Euangelistarum 


i  44,  47 

72 

ii  17 

74 

26 

75  f 

31 

77  f 

45 

75 

70 

74,  75,  77  f 

71 

75 

106 

77  f 

111 

75 

128 

77 

138 

74 

iii  25 

76 

27 

74 

28 

75 

29 

77  f 

46 

73 

70 

72 

71 

14 

84 

72 

86 

75 

iv  6,  20 

75 

9 

67,  72,  75 

de  Doctrina  Christiana 

57 

ii  16—22  61  ff 

22  54,  60,  63 

62  63  n 

iii  30  ff  56 

iv  16  63  n 

contra  Faustum 

56 
xiii  16  91  f 

contra  Felicem 

12,  57  f 
i    2—5      66—71 

4  75 

ii  14  70 

contra  ep.  Fundamenti 
9  67  ff 


Epp.  (ad  Hieronymum) 
10  58 

Homil.  in  lohannem 

59 
113  75 

de  Ordine 
ii  45  65  n 

Quaest.  Euangeliorum 
i  27  76 

Retractationum 
i  21  60 

ii    8  71 

12  76 

Serm. 
104  55  n 

BEATUS 

Comm.  in  Apoc 
440  f         31 


COMMODIAN 
Carm.  Apologeticum 
267  f         6  n 

Instructiones 
ii  13  6  n 


S. 

CYPRIAN 

Testimonia 

i     4 

27,  38 

ii     3 

13 

17 

7  n,  26,  30 

26 

27 

iii     1 

32 

3 

12 

10 

26 

61 

44 

66 

13 

de  Dominica  Oratione 
8  26 

ad  Fortunatum 
11  26,  27 


90 


INDEX    OF    PATRISTIC   WORKS. 


de  Lapsis 
31  26,  27 

de  Op.  et  Eleemosynis 
5  27 

Epp. 

vi    3  26 

Iviii     5  26,  27 

Ixiii  18  13 

S.  IRENAEUS 
Haer.  v  25  44 

S.  ISIDORE  OF  SEVILLE 
Etym.  vi  4  54 

S.   JEROME 
Praef.  in  Danielem 
8 

Ep.  ad  Damasum 
63  f 

contra  Vigilantium 
7  32 


contra  Marcionem 


iii 
7 
24 

iv  10 
21 
39 


7  n,  29  n 

20,  22  f 
23 

21,  23 
21 

23 


de  Oratione 
15  21 

de  Paenitentia 

12  21 

de  Patientia 

13  21 
adv.  Praxean 

22 


3 

16 

adv. 

7 

9 
10 


21 

Psychicos 
19,  23,  24 
19,  24 
24 


de  Resurrectione  Carnis 
58  21 


Scorpiace 


8 


V? 


75  32 

JUSTIN   MARTYR 

Dial,  cum  Try  phone 
31  22,  23,  25  n 

LUCIFER 

de  S.  Athanasio 
40  32 

de  Regibus  apostaticis 
11  32 

PRISCILLIAN 
p.  11  32 

TERTULLIAN 

de  Baptismo 
10  76 

de  Game  Christi 
15  23 


TYCONIUS 
p.     2  22  n 

VICTORINUS   OF  PETTAU 

in  Apoc  6,  29  if 

VIGILIUS 

contra  Varimundum 
34 


Contra  Fulgentium  Donatistam 
91  f 

De  Montibus  Sina  et  Sion 
I  42 

De  Pascha  Computus 

13  7 

lTerty  adv.  ludaeos 

8  7n 

9  29  n 


CAMBRIDGE  :     PRINTED    BY    J.    AND    C.    F.    CLAY,    AT    THE    UNIVERSITY    PRESS. 


s 


1 


Burtitt,  F.C. 

mhe  old  Latin  and 
the  Itala,